^ 


THE 
REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 


other  Books  by  David  Jayne  Hill 

A  History  of  Diplomacy  in  the  In- 
ternational Development  o£  Europe. 

Vol.  I — The  Struggle  for  Universal 
Empire.  With  5  Colored  Maps, 
Chronological  Tables,  List  of 
Treaties  and  Index.  Pp.  XXIII- 
481.    $5.00. 

Vol.  II — The  Establishment  of  Ter- 
ritorial Sovereignty.  With  4  Col- 
ored MapSy  Tables,  etc.  Pp. 
XXIV-688,    $5.00. 

Vol.  Ill — The  Diplomacy  of  the  Age 
of  Absolutism.  With  5  Colored 
Maps,  Tables,  etc.  Pp.  XXVI- 
706.    $6.00. 

World   Organization,  as  Affected  by 
the  Nature  of  the  Modern  State. 
Pp.  IX-214.    $1.50. 

Translated  also  into  French  and  German. 

The  People's  Government. 

Pp.  X-288.    $1.25  net. 

Americanism — What  It  Is. 

Pp.  XV-283.    $1.25  net. 


THE 
REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

A  SURVEY  OF  FORCES 
AND  CONDITIONS 


BY 


DAVID  JAYNE  HILL 


NEW  YORK 

THE  CENTURY  CO. 

1917 


L.lr 


T^ 


\0 


Copyright,  1917,  by 
The  Century  Co. 


Published  October,  1917 


PREFACE 

The  world  is  passing  through  the  birth  pangs 
of  a  new  historic  period.  Europe,  because  it  con- 
trols the  destiny  of  the  greater  part  of  the  earth, 
was  the  first  to  feel  these  convulsions,  but  the 
transformation  taking  place  is  essentially  a  world 
movement. 

The  struggle  now  going  on  has  been  variously 
called  "a  trade  war,"  a  contest  regarding  ^'the 
destiny  of  the  smaller  states,"  ''a  war  for  democ- 
racy," and  "a  war  for  principles."  No  one  of 
these  expressions  quite  definitely  conveys  the  real 
significance  of  the  Great  War,  because  no  one  of 
them  adequately  presents  to  the  mind  its  relation 
to  the  changes  in  political  thought  that  have  oc- 
curred during  the  last  few  decades. 

What  has  been  most  completely  overlooked  is 
the  fact  that  the  Great  War  was  not  in  its  begin- 
ning, and  is  not  now,  so  much  a  struggle  between 
different  forms  of  government  as  it  is  a  question 
regarding  the  purpose  and  spirit  of  all  govern- 


3(57984 


vi  PREFACE 

ments.  The  Austrian-Serbian-Russian  conflict, 
promoted  by  Germany  with  ulterior  designs,  did 
not  in  any  way  involve  forms  of  government.  All 
the  participants  were  monarchies,  and  no  issue 
for  or  against  democracy  was  presented.  When 
France  and  England,  acting  as  their  interests  and 
obligations  required,  were  afterward  forced  into 
the  fray,  even  then  there  was  no  question  of  the  in- 
ternal organization  of  governments,  but  it  was 
seen  to  be  a  war  for  the  salvation  of  Europe  as 
a  society  of  independent  states.  It  has  never 
become  a  war  for  democracy  in  the  sense  that 
there  is  an  attempt  by  any  nation  to  universalize 
a  democratic  form  of  government.  That  would 
be  a  doubtful  venture,  inconsistent  with  the  true 
nature  of  democracy. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Great  War  is  a  revolution 
against  the  alleged  rights  of  arbitrary  force,  ren- 
dered necessary  by  the  failure  to  reach  the  goal 
of  a  secure  international  organization  by  an  evo- 
lutionary process. 

Modern  nations  have  succeeded,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  in  developing  constitutional  govern- 
ments in  which  ideas  of  justice  have  been  em- 
bodied in  systems  of  law,  but  they  have  also  in- 


PREFACE  vii 

herited  international  traditions  that  were  orig- 
inated in  an  age  when  military  force  was  the  basis 
of  state  existence.  These  traditions  are  embodied 
in  the  following  four  propositions: 

(1)  The  essence  of  a  state  is  "sovereignty," 
defined  as  "supreme  power." 

(2)  A  sovereign  state  has  the  right  to  declare 
war  upon  any  other  sovereign  state  for  any  rea- 
son that  seems  to  it  sufficient. 

(3)  An  act  of  conquest  by  the  exercise  of 
superior  military  force  entitles  the  conqueror  to 
the  possession  of  the  conquered  territory. 

(4)  The  population  goes  with  the  land  and 
becomes  subject  to  the  will  of  the  conqueror. 

Such  monstrous  doctrines  as  these  would  never 
have  been  invented  by  any  jurist  or  statesman  un- 
der the  constitutional  regime,  yet  they  are  the 
postulates  that  underlie  all  the  great  European 
settlements,  and  have  never  been  repudiated  by 
any  European  international  congress,  not  even  by 
the  conferences  held  at  The  Hague  in  1899  and 
1907.  On  the  contrary,  these  propositions  were 
tacitly  assumed  as  composing  the  unwritten  con- 
stitution of  the  European  system  of  sovereign 
states,  and  virtually  all  the  powers  there  repre- 


viii  PREFACE 

sented  had  at  some  time,  and  in  some  cases 
habitually,  put  them  into  practice. 

What  gave  to  the  Hague  conferences  their  great 
interest  for  the  public  generally  was  the  hope 
that  there  would  come  out  of  them  some  new 
enunciation  of  international  law  that  would  put 
an  end  to  war  and  conquest.  This  was  the  strong 
human  current  that  circled  about  the  conferences, 
but  among  the  delegates  it  was  well  understood 
that  a  direct  blow  aimed  at  any  one  of  the  four 
propositions  just  stated  would  mean  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  conference,  and,  if  insisted  upon,  would 
involve  a  general  war,  for  there  were  still  na- 
tional ambitions  which  war  alone  could  satisfy. 

Peace,  it  was  hoped,  might  be  prolonged  by 
reliance  upon  the  old  see-saw,  "The  balance  of 
power,"  fortified  by  increased  armaments.  Sup- 
plementary to  this  was  the  pious  wish,  which  in 
the  clearer  heads  never  amounted  to  faith,  that 
no  nation  would  be  guilty  of  dishonor  by  an 
abuse  of  power,  although  its  freedom  to  do  so  was 
undisputed.  Gently  and  timidly,  restrictions 
upon  the  too  barbarous  exercise  of  the  state's 
traditionally  recognized  prerogatives  were  pro- 
posed in  the  form  of  conventions  about  war  on 


PREFACE  ix 

land  and  war  on  the  sea,  with  provisions  for  an 
honorable  settlement  of  differences  if  any  nation 
desired  to  be  just;  but  even  these  measures  were 
long  contested,  and  the  more  important  of  them 
persistently  opposed  by  certain  powers. 

The  process  of  peaceful  evolution  toward  in- 
ternational justice  having  failed  to  throw  off  the 
thraldom  imposed  upon  Europe  by  the  tradition 
of  absolute  sovereignty  and  its  corollaries,  it  re- 
quired no  special  clairvoyance  to  see  that  a  revolu- 
tion would  some  day  come  born  of  blood  and  fire. 
It  has  come.  Great  powers,  appealing  to  the  in- 
famous dogma  of  unlimited  right  on  the  part  of 
the  state,  have  placed  their  wicked  "necessities" 
above  all  law,  above  all  morality,  above  all  hu- 
nanity,  and  have  plunged  Europe  and  a  great  part 
of,  the  world  into  a  yawning  gulf  of  death  and 
devastation.  To  resist  that  arrogance  and  to  end 
not  only  this  war,  but  any  war  based  on  these 
assumptions,  is  the  aim  of  the  resisting  powers. 
It  is  the  making  of  a  new  world ;  but  there  can  be 
no  new  world  until  there  is  a  new  Europe  in  which 
the  dogma  that  the  state  is  a  licensed  brigand  is 
smitten  dead. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  show  that 


X  PREFACE 

this  dogma,  and  not  any  particular  form  of  mere 
state  organization,  is  the  real  enemy  that  must  be 
destroyed.  The  incidents  of  the  Great  War  are 
well  known  and  require  no  mention  here.  It  is 
to  the  deeper  problems  that  attention  should  be 
directed.  Nor  is  it  the  intention  of  this  little 
book  to  add  to  the  array  of  purely  subjective 
solutions  of  these  problems, — for  the  true  solu- 
tion can  be  found  only  by  the  united  efforts  of  a 
preponderance  of  the  great  powers, — ^but  rather 
to  point  out  what  are  the  really  fundamental  is- 
sues involved  in  the  Great  War,  and  to  take  ac- 
count of  the  forces  and  conditions  which  may  aid 
or  hinder  the  solution. 

Six  of  the  chapters  contained  in  this  volume 
were,  in  substance,  first  presented  to  the  public 
last  March  in  the  form  of  lectures  on  the  Schouler 
Foundation  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University; 
five  of  them  were  in  part  printed  in  the  Century 
Magazine  for  May,  June,  July,  September,  and 
October  of  the  present  year. 

Washington,  D.  C 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I  Europe's  Heritage  of  Evil 3 

II  International  Ideals 38 

III  Economic  Imperialism 68 

IV  The  Vision  of  a  Commonwealth  .      .      .104 

V    The    Transfiguration    of    the    German 

Empire 136 

VI    International  Organization    .      .      .      .172 

VII    The  Constructive  Power  of  Democracy  .   208 

VIII     America's  Interest  in  the  New  Europe  .   236 

Index 283 


THE  REBUILDING  OF 
EUROPE 


THE  REBUILDING  OF 
EUROPE 

CHAPTER  I 
EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL 

IN  the  retrospect  of  future  historians  the  year 
1914  may  have  a  place  not  less  important 
than  the  year  1453,  which  has  been  accepted  as 
marking  the  dividing  line  between  medieval  and 
modern  history.  The  fall  of  Constantinople  and 
the  establishment  of  the  Ottoman  Turks  in  Eu- 
rope revealed  the  insufficiency  of  the  bond  that 
had  held  Christendom  together.  In  like  man- 
ner the  present  European  War  reveals  the  in- 
adequacy of  purely  national  conceptions  for  the 
complete  organization  of  mankind;  for  as  Chris- 
tendom failed  to  unite  the  whole  world  by  faith, 
so  civilization  has  failed  to  maintain  itself  by  a 
mere  balance  of  forces. 

The  great  tragedy  of  history  has  been  the  con- 
3 


4       THE  REBUiLDiNG  OF  EUROPE 

flict  between  the  universal  humanism  that  Rome 
endeavored  to  establish,  first  by  law  and  after- 
ward by  faith,  and  the  tribalism  of  the  primitive 
European  races.  In  the  fifteenth  century  tribal- 
ism triumphed.  The  moral  unity  of  Europe, 
which  Rome  had  vainly  tried  to  secure,  wholly 
disappeared.  Both  the  empire  and  the  papacy, 
in  which  great  minds  had  placed  implicit  faith, 
proved  unable,  in  the  face  of  racial  conflicts, 
either  to  rule  the  world  or  to  preserve  the  co- 
herence of  Christendom.  All  that  had  given 
grandeur  to  Rome  seemed  to  have  ended  in  failure 
when  the  Greek  Empire,  the  last  bulwark  of 
Roman  imperialism,  already  long  and  bitterly 
alienated  from  the  Roman  Curia,  paid  the  pen- 
alty of  separatism,  and  fell  before  the  Ottoman  as- 
sault. With  it  the  splendid  postulates  of  the 
Roman  imperial  idea — the  essential  unity  of  man- 
kind, the  supremacy  of  law  based  upon  reason 
and  divine  command,  the  moral  solidarity  of  all 
who  accepted  the  formulae  of  faith,  and  the  ef- 
fective organization  of  peace  as  a  condition  of 
human  happiness — suffered  a  fatal  catastrophe. 
In  place  of  the  Pax  Romana,  Faustrecht,  the  right 
of  the  mailed  fist,  widely  prevailed  within  the 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL       5 

confines  of  Christendom.  Slowly  dying  during 
a  thousand  years,  the  traditions  of  the  ancient 
world,  which  the  Greek  Empire  had  endeavored 
to  preserve  long  after  they  had  been  undermined 
by  tribalism  in  the  West,  were  now  definitively 
abandoned.  The  future  was  seen  to  belong  to 
the  separate  nations,  which  alone  possessed  a 
strong  sense  of  unity.  The  disparity  of  races,  the 
spirit  of  local  independence,  the  conflict  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  forms  of  obedience, 
combined  to  render  possible  the  development  of 
powerful  national  monarchies,  and  dynastic  am- 
bition was  eager  to  make  use  of  them  for  its  own 
designs. 

There  was,  indeed,  an  element  of  progress  in 
this  reassertion  of  the  tribal  spirit.  The  rule  of 
Rome  had  destroyed  the  balance  between  law  and 
liberty.  The  vital  energies  of  the  primitive  races 
could  not  be  thus  suppressed.  All  the  rich  vari- 
ety of  human  diversity  pressed  the  issue  of  na- 
tionality. In  order  to  give  to  law  its  complete 
authority,  it  was  necessary  that  it  should  be  de- 
veloped out  of  experience  rather  than  imposed  as 
a  dominant  system.     Each  nation  must  arrive 


6       THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

at  the  common  destination  by  pursuing  its  own 
path  and  under  its  own  leadership.  The  forma- 
tion of  nation-states  was,  therefore,  morally  in- 
evitable. It  was  essential  to  the  full  development 
of  human  capacities. 

The  defect  in  this  process  of  evolution  lay  in 
the  cruelty  and  ignorance  of  the  barbarians  out 
of  whom  these  nation-states  were  formed.  The 
procedure  was  of  necessity  a  work  of  force  rather 
than  a  work  of  intelligence.  On  the  part  of  the 
masses  of  the  population  the  instinct  of  avoiding 
danger  gave  to  any  efficient  protector  a  vast  au- 
thority. On  the  part  of  natural  leaders  the  in- 
stinct of  domination  became  the  shaping  power  of 
the  state.  As  a  result,  the  nation-state,  slowly 
evolving  from  the  feudal  state,  became  a  dynastic 
creation,  in  which  race,  the  natural  basis  of  na- 
tionality, played  a  subordinate  role.  Conquest 
seldom  proceeded  along  strictly  ethnic  lines. 
The  task  was  primarily  geographic  expansion  and 
strategic  security.  Once  conquered,  the  differ- 
ent races  gradually  coalesced  with  their  conquer- 
ors to  form  distinct  national  units  in  which  blood 
yielded  supremacy  to  national  traditions,  and  the 
most  opposite  diversities  of  race,  language,  and 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL       7 

religious  belief  were  thus  finally  compounded  into 
the  substance  of  the  nation-states. 

This,  in  brief  outline,  is  the  history  of  vir- 
tually all  the  nation-states  of  Europe.  Not  one 
of  them  can  boast  of  absolute  purity  of  race.  Not 
one  of  them  can  establish  a  claim  that  its  state- 
hood is  founded  on  ethnic  homogeneity.  Not 
one  of  them  can  profess  that  it  is  the  product  of 
conscious  and  voluntary  adhesion  to  a  predeter- 
mined theory  of  what  the  state  should  be  and  who 
should  compose  its  substance. 

And  yet  these  nation-states  are  in  no  sense  mere 
accidents.  However  self-conscious  some  of  them 
may  have  become,  they  were  originally  the  crea- 
tions of  dynastic  purpose.  The  unity  they  now 
possess  was  derived  from  the  sense  of  community 
that  gradually  grew  up  within  them  through  close 
contact,  common  interests,  common  sufferings, 
and  common  triumphs ;  but  they  are  all  in  reality 
creations  of  force,  exercised  chiefly  by  dominant 
dynasties,  under  which  in  the  process  of  time 
they  have  arrived  at  a  condition  of  national  self- 
consciousness. 

This  in  some  cases  has  been  so  intense  that 
the  will  of  the  nation  has  become  more  powerful 


8       THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

than  the  will  of  the  dynasty ;  which,  therefore,  has 
either  been  cast  off  entirely,  as  in  France,  which 
exists  by  the  will  of  the  nation,  or  permitted  to 
survive  as  a  mere  symbol  of  national  unity,  as  in 
England.  Only  in  a  few  instances  does  the 
dynasty  continue  to  exercise  uncontrolled  author- 
ity. 

In  the  process  of  forming  the  nation-state  two 
instruments  have  been  employed  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  dynastic  purposes:  war  and  marriage. 
The  territorial  expansion  obtained  by  the  war- 
like energies  of  a  conquering  tribe  under  the 
leadership  of  a  hereditary  chief  has  been  vastly 
aided  by  the  union  of  such  tribes  through  the  in- 
termarriage of  their  chiefs  and  the  process  of  in- 
heritance, thus  producing  a  tribe  within  a  tribe. 
Great  empires  have  been  formed  by  wedlock,  as 
mighty  rivers  are  produced  by  the  confluence  of 
many  tributaries  into  one  stream.  The  house 
of  Hapsburg,  for  example,  owes  more  to  Venus 
than  to  Mars.  In  the  course  of  its  history  whole 
peoples,  remote  from  one  another  in  space  and 
still  more  remote  in  character,  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  these  foreign  rulers  by  marriage  con- 
tracts.    The  nation-state  has  seldom  been  ruled 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL       9 

by  the  pure  blood  of  even  its  own  dominant  tribe. 
From  the  very  beginning  royalty  has  been  in 
some  degree  an  international  institution,  a  kind 
of  super-tribe  destined  to  rule  by  the  mere  fact 
of  heredity,  composed  of  kinsmen  at  the  altar,  but 
of  foemen  in  the  field.  And,  notwithstanding  the 
devotion  of  monarchs  to  nationalism,  there  has 
always  existed  a  secret  solidarity  of  royal  inter- 
ests. 

Success  in  war  always  creates  its  own  moral 
standards,  and  dynasticism  has  not  failed  to  do 
so.  Republican  Rome  took  p^ide  in  never  wag- 
ing an  unjust  war,  and  had  its  college  of  fetials 
to  determine  whether  an  action  even  against  bar- 
barians was  just.  This  practice  arose  from  a 
supreme  devotion  to  the  idea  of  law  and  a  rever- 
ence for  human  reason  as  the  source  of  law.  The 
founders  and  expanders  of  the  nation-states  have 
entertained  no  such  scruples.  They  have  adopted 
the  motto  that  the  will  of  the  prince  is  law,  and 
that  there  is  no  binding  law  above  it.  The  na- 
tion-states, and,  in  truth,  most  others,  have  as- 
sented to  this  dictum,  the  only  question  in  de- 
bate being  who  really  possesses  the  authority  of 
the  prince. 


10     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

The  ^'sovereign/'  whoever  he  is,  being  without 
a  law  to  govern  him,  an  abstract  attribute  of  the 
ruler,  called  "sovereignty,"  has  been  generally 
accepted  as  the  substance  of  the  state,  and  its 
powers  have  been  conceived  to  be,  as  those  of 
the  absolute  prince  confessedly  were,  altogether 
unlimited.  Since  Christendom  was  abolished, 
and  tribalism  has  prevailed,  unlimited  power  has 
been  recognized,  and  is  still  recognized,  in  the 
public  law  of  Europe  as  the  foundation  of  the 
state. 

The  most  fundamental  of  all  the  questions 
arising  out  of  the  Great  War  is.  Can  this  open 
repudiation  of  humanism  in  the  interest  of  tribal- 
ism be  permitted  to  endure?  Is  it  true  that  a 
sovereign- — any  sovereign,  even  the  totality  of  the 
so-called  "sovereign  people,"  of  any  tribe  or  na- 
tion-state— has  a  right  to  claim  unlimited  au- 
thority or  even  authority  limited  only  by  the  ex- 
tent of  its  power?  Is  there  not  a  law  for  the  con- 
duct of  states,  written  or  unwritten,  which  all 
sovereigns  should  be  required  to  obey,  wholly  ir- 
respective of  the  theoretical  source  or  actual  ex- 
tent of  their  power?  But  if  there  is  such  a  law, 
recognized  or  unrecognized,   the  conception   of 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     11 

sovereignty  as  in  its  nature  absolute  and  un- 
limited is  evidently  false. 

It  was  Machiavelli  who  expounded  the  tribal 
theory  of  the  state  and  the  methods  of  securing 
its  advancement ;  and  in  this  he  was  inventing  no 
system  of  his  own,  but  merely  stating  in  definite 
terms  the  principles  which  successful  monarchs 
were  already  putting  into  practice.  "  ^The 
Prince,'  "  declares  Villari,  ^'had  a  more  direct  ac- 
tion on  real  life  than  any  other  book  in  the 
world,  and  a  larger  share  in  emancipating  Eu- 
rope from  the  Middle  Ages'' ;  but  it  would  be  more 
exact  to  say  that  Machiavelli's  work,  written  in 
1513  and  published  in  1532,  was  the  perfect  ex- 
pression of  an  emancipation  from  moral  re- 
straits  far  advanced.  The  Christian  idealism  of 
the  Middle  Ages  had  already  largely  disap- 
peared. The  old  grounds  of  obligation  had  been 
swept  away.  Men  looked  for  their  safety  to  the 
nation-state  rather  than  to  the  solidarity  of  Chris- 
tendom; and  the  state,  as  Machiavelli's  gospel 
proclaimed  it,  consisted  in  absolute  and  irrespon- 
sible control  exercised  by  one  man  who  should  em- 
body its  unity,  strength,  and  authority. 


12     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Thus  began  the  modern  world.  The  concep- 
tions of  the  Roman  law,  especially  those  of  im- 
perium  and  majestas,  were  partly  revived  in  sup- 
port of  the  royal  dynasties  in  their  struggle  with 
the  residues  of  feudalism,  which  resulted  in  the 
development  of  the  national  monarchies;  but 
they  had  lost  their  note  of  universality.  Even 
Christianity  ceased  to  be  ecumenical.  There  re- 
mained, indeed,  a  traditional  fellowship  and  fra- 
ternity of  kings,  but  it  was  virtually  little  more 
than  a  code  of  formal  etiquette. 

With  the  dissolution  of  the  feudal  organiza- 
tion through  the  predominance  of  the  national 
monarchies  disappeared  that  sense  of  mutual  ob- 
ligation which  under  the  feudal  regime  had  con- 
stituted an  ethical  bond  between  the  different  or- 
ders of  society.  What  remained  was  the  bare 
conception  of  irresponsible  "sovereignty"  consid- 
ered as  a  divinely  implanted,  absolute,  unlimited, 
and  indivisible  prerogative  of  personal  rule,  the 
charter  right  of  each  dynasty  to  seek  its  own  ag- 
grandizement, preponderance,  and  glory  regard- 
less of  all  considerations  of  race,  reason,  or  re- 
ligion. 

With  such  a  conception  of  the  nature  of  the 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL      13 

state,  the  whole  system  of  international  relations 
was  necessarily  based  upon  military  force.  Cas- 
ually formed  customs,  usually  the  expression  of 
superior  power  or  of  temporary  expediency,  sup- 
plemented by  transitory  alliances  and  enforced 
conventions,  supplied  the  only  rules  that  obtained 
general  recognition.  Until  Grotius  appealed  to 
the  ethical  motive,  and  the  treaties  of  Westphalia 
recognized  the  de  jure  rights  of  territorial  sover- 
eignty, there  was  among  the  nations  of  Europe 
no  semblance  of  public  law  which  jurisprudence 
could  recognize.  But  even  after  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia,  the  so-called  "law  of  nations"  was 
little  more  than  a  theoretical  acceptance  of  the 
equal  rights  of  autonomous  sovereigns,  each  of 
whom  could  work  his  will  without  interference 
within  his  own  domains,  leaving  to  each  ruler  the 
unquestioned  prerogative  of  dictating  the  religion 
of  his  own  subjects,  of  taxing  them,  of  arming 
them,  and  of  making  war  with  their  united  forces 
for  his  own  advantage.  In  effect,  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia,  by  rendering  even  petty  princes  abso- 
lute, permitted  more  than  three  hundred  and  sixty 
independent  rulers  to  carry  on  the  sanguinary 
game  of  war  for  plunder  or  conquest  without  re- 


14     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

straint;  and  all,  left  free  to  destroy  one  another, 
were  thus  entitled  by  public  law,  through  war  and 
diplomacy,  to  seek  their  fortunes  with  complete 
autonomy.  Sovereignty,  defined  as  "supreme 
power,"  regardless  of  any  principle  of  right,  was 
conceived  to  be  the  very  essence  of  the  state.  It 
remained  simply  to  discover  by  a  trial  of  strength 
which  power  was  in  reality  supreme. 

When  in  its  moral  awakening  the  Europe  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  and  early  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century  began  to  think  for  itself, — 
or  at  least  to  follow  the  thinking  of  Locke,  Mon- 
tesquieu, Rousseau,  Kant,  and  others  who  sought 
to  find  the  true  foundations  of  the  state  in  the 
conception  of  law  based  upon  the  nature  and  ne- 
cessities of  men  rather  than  upon  dynastic  power, 
— Europe  found  itself  under  the  incubus  of  this 
sinister  inheritance. 

Without  a  convulsion  that  would  shake  the 
whole  of  Europe  to  its  foundations  it  was  power- 
less to  throw  it  off.  Rousseau  had  in  "Le  contrat 
social"  merely  transferred  the  idea  of  sovereignty 
from  the  monarch  to  the  people,  but  he  had  not 
essentially  altered  its  character.  It  was  still  "su- 
preme power,"  still  the  "absolute,  indivisible,  and 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     15 

perpetual"  thing  which  Jean  Bodin,  seeking  to 
give  royalty  a  philosophical  pedestal  to  stand 
upon,  had  said  it  was.  Inherent  in  the  people,  it 
was  still  the  personification  of  all  the  public  pow- 
ers ;  and  the  volonte  generate,  the  general  will,  re- 
gardless of  its  moral  qualities,  was  for  each  sep- 
arate state,  the  unlimited,  irresponsible  source  of 
law. 

When  the  French  Revolution  judged  and  con- 
demned the  king,  it  was  done  as  a  sovereign  act; 
and  was,  therefore,  not  permitted  to  be  questioned 
by  the  rest  of  Europe.  Was  not  sovereignty  ab- 
solute ?  Then  it  belonged  to  France.  Was  it  not 
indivisible?  Then  it  belonged  to  the  French 
people.  Was  it  not  perpetual  ?  Who,  then,  could 
ever  take  it  away  or  in  any  way  dispute  it?  And 
thus  the  volonte  generate  of  one  nation,  in  the  per- 
son of  the  residuary  legatee  of  the  Revolution,  Na- 
poleon Bonaparte,  made  emperor  by  the  assent  of 
the  volonte  generate  of  France,  assumed  to  act  as 
sovereign  over  the  whole  of  Europe. 

There  was  no  moment  during  the  whole  revolu- 
tionary period  when  sovereignty  ceased  to  be  con- 
ceived as  unlimited  supreme  power.  And  thus 
the  malign  inheritance  of  Europe,  in  so  far  as  it 


16     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

was  affected  by  the  Revolution,  was  essentially  un- 
changed. Monarchy  and  democracy  alike,  with- 
out distinction,  have  regarded  sovereignty  merely 
as  ''supreme  power,"  "absolute,  indivisible,  and 
perpetual."  Thus  it  stands  in  the  text-books  of 
the  law  of  nations.  So  many  sovereignties,  so 
many  absolute  autocrats.  Being  the  sole  sources 
of  law,  how  can  they  be  subject  to  law?  And 
there  being  no  law  which  they  may  not  set  aside, 
since  it  is  but  their  creature,  sovereign  nations 
are  irresponsible,  and  have  no  more  to  do  with 
moral  right  or  wrong  than  so  many  untamed  ani- 
mals seeking  to  satisfy  their  appetites.  The  right 
to  make  war  at  will  and  to  be  answerable  to  no 
one,  that  was,  and  is,  the  accepted  doctrine  of  the 
old  Europe,  which  merely  asserted  itself  anew  in 
1914. 

This  does  not  signify  that  it  has  never  been 
contested.  More  than  three  hundred  years  ago, 
a  now  almost  forgotten  German  jurist,  though 
recognizing  sovereignty  as  the  foundation  of  the 
state,  defined  it  as  an  attribute,  not  of  the  people 
as  an  unorganized  mass,  but  of  a  "body  politic" 
organized  for  the  promotion  of  justice,  deriving  its 
authority  as  a  moral  entity  from  the  rights  of  its 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     17 

constituent  members,  whom  it  is  organized  to 
protect  against  wrong,  and  therefore  from  its 
very  nature  charged  with  mutual  rights  and 
obligations. 

Here  is  pictured  no  irresponsible  autocrat 
clothed  with  supreme  power,  but  a  responsible 
member  of  a  family  of  nations,  fitted  to  unite  with 
other  members  of  that  family  in  extending  over 
the  whole  earth  the  reign  of  law  and  justice,  but 
above  all  required  by  the  very  nature  and  pur- 
pose of  its  authority  to  conduct  itself  in  all  its 
relations,  outward  and  inward,  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  from  which  its  authority  as  an 
organ  of  justice  is  derived.  Founded  upon  the 
inherent  rights  of  persons,  and  existing  for  their 
protection,  a  state  in  this  sense  can  arrogate  to  it- 
self no  sovereign  right  of  conquest,  whatever  its 
power  may  be.  The  only  authority  it  can  claim 
is  authority  to  defend  the  rights  and  interests  thus 
committed  to  its  guardianship.  As  a  moral  en- 
tity— for  this  is  what  Althusius  taught  that  a 
state  founded  on  rights  necessarily  is — if  should 
be  ready  to  apply  the  principles  of  justice  and 
equity  in  its  dealings  with  other  states. 

Thus  understood,  sovereignty  is  not  merely  a 


18     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

name  for  supreme  power.  It  is  a  right  inherent 
in  a  free  and  independent  group  of  human  beings, 
possessing  a  definite  territory,  to  form  and  main- 
tain a  government.  Reduced  to  its  simplest 
terms,  it  is  the  right  of  a  free  community  to  pro- 
vide for  self -regulation  and  to  maintain  its  own 
existence.  Whatever  is  necessary  to  that;  and 
nothing  more,  is  included  in  this  conception  of  the 
state.  Only  in  an  incidental  manner  does  it  be- 
long to  the  category  of  might.  In  its  essential 
attributes  it  belongs  to  the  category  of  right. 

Were  this  conception  of  sovereignty  generally 
accepted,  justice  and  equity  would  not  halt  at  the 
frontiers  of  a  nation.  The  right  of  war  would 
exist,  but  it  would  not  be,  as  the  old  Europe  has 
universally  recognized  it  to  be,  a  virtually  unlim- 
ited right.  There  could  be,  under  this  conception, 
no  permanently  subject  peoples.  There  could  be 
no  world  dominion.  There  could  be  no  legal 
schemes  of  conquest.  War  would  mean  the  pun- 
ishment of  offenders  against  the  law  of  nations, 
the  suppression  of  anarchy  and  brigandage,  re- 
sistance to  the  ambitions  of  the  conqueror. 

But  the  old  Europe  has  never  been  disposed  to 
give  to  sovereignty  that  meaning.     It  could  not 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     19 

do  so  while  it  was  identified  with  royal  legitimacy. 
That  principle  triumphed  a  hundred  years  ago  in 
the  Congress  of  Vienna,  which  strove  to  neutralize 
the  effects  of  the  French  Revolution  by  ending 
forever  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  Then  fol- 
lowed the  effort  to  establish  Europe  firmly  upon 
the  principles  of  absolutism  by  crushing  out  all 
constitutional  aspirations.  To  accomplish  this 
the  unlimited  right  of  war  was  necessary,  for 
without  armed  intervention  by  the  allied  sover- 
eigns the  task  was  hopeless.  Legitimacy  was  to 
be  everywhere  sustained  by  the  Holy  Alliance. 
Wherever  a  state  adopted  a  constitution,  the  pow- 
ers bound  themselves  at  the  Conference  of  Trop- 
pau,  "if  need  be  by  arms,  to  bring  back  the 
guilty  state  into  the  bosom  of  the  Alliance." 

The  unlimited  right  of  a  sovereign  state  to  make 
war  for  any  reason  it  considered  sufficient,  or  for 
no  reason  at  all,  thus  seemed  to  be  written  into 
the  public  law  of  Europe.  That  was  the  un- 
hallowed inheritance  which  even  modern  democ- 
racies have  received  from  absolutism.  Being 
entitled  to  all  the  prerogatives  of  sovereignty  as 
historically  understood,  they  have  not  repudiated 
the  heritage.     And  thus  they  have  tacitly  ac- 


20     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

cepted  the  evil  principle  of  the  despotisms  against 
whose  iniquities  they  have  rebelled,  and  whose 
pernicious  influence  they  were  struggling  to  throw 
off. 

In  the  call  for  the  first  Hague  Conference  ''all 
questions  concerning  the  political  relation  of 
states"  were  expressly  excluded  from  the  deliber- 
ations of  the  conference.  In  that,  and  in  the 
second  conference,  rules  were  laid  down  regard- 
ing the  manner  of  conducting  war,  both  on  land 
and  sea,  but  nowhere  were  any  regulations  pre- 
scribed regarding  the  causes  or  conditions  of 
declaring  war  that  were  to  be  considered  legal  or 
illegal,  just  or  unjust.  As  one  of  the  best  ac- 
credited authorities  on  the  subject  says: 

Theoretically,  international  law  ought  to  determine  the 
causes  for  which  war  can  be  justly  undertaken;  in  other 
words,  it  ought  to  mark  out  as  plainly  as  municipal  law 
what  constitutes  a  wrong  for  which  a  remedy  may  be 
sought  at  law.  It  might  also  not  unreasonably  go  on  to 
discourage  the  commission  of  wrongs  by  investing  a  state 
seeking  redress  with  special  rights,  and  by  subjecting  a 
wrong-doer  to  special  disabilities. 

In  fact,  however,  it  does  nothing  of  the  kind. 
The  reason  is  not  merely  that  there  would  be  no 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     21 

means  except  war  for  enforcing  such  rules, — for 
that  would  apply  equally  to  the  regulations  con- 
cerning the  manner  of  conducting  war  that  have 
been  explicitly  laid  down, — but  because  no  sov- 
ereign state  has  thus  far  been  disposed  to  pledge 
itself  not  to  engage  in  war  except  under  condi- 
tions that  in  harmony  with  its  own  principles 
of  legislation  would  be  considered  just.  ^ 'Hence 
both  parties  in  every  war  are  regarded  as  being  in 
an  identical  position,  and  consequently  possessed 
of  equal  rights."  Aggressor  and  victim  alike,  tri-J 
umphant  force  and  helpless  innocence,  these  are 
held  in  equal  honor  by  the  public  law  of  Europe 
as  it  now  stands,  and  this  law  has  been  tacitly 
accepted  by  the  whole  "family  of  nations" !   ' 

It  is  upon  this  unlimited  right  to  resort  to  war, 
and  the  consequent  general  irresponsibility  in  in- 
ternational relations,  that  the  idea  of  neutrality 
reposes;  and  yet  neutrality  is  historically  an  im- 
mense step  forward  in  the  path  of  progress  when 
compared  with  the  Machiavellian  doctrine  that  no 
opportunity  for  gain  from  the  quarrels  of  others 
should  be  allowed  to  pass  unutilized.  In  every 
war,  Machiavelli  declares,  one  side  or  the  other 


22     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

will  win,  and  the  wise  course  for  an  intelligent 
prince  to  pursue  is  to  join  at  the  proper  moment 
with  the  probable  winner,  whoever  he  may  be,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  share  with  him  the  spoils  of 
victory. 

The  modern  doctrine  of  neutrality,  which  con- 
siders war  an  unavoidable  evil,  is  no  doubt  an 
amelioration  of  Machiavelli's  policy;  for,  instead 
of  widening  the  range  of  hostilities,  its  aims  to 
narrow  the  area  of  conflict.  It  is  inspired,  how- 
ever, chiefly  by  the  consideration  that  it  is  a  na- 
tional right  to  avoid  the  infection  of  a  pestilence 
which  the  neutral  power  has  not  caused  and  for 
which  it  is  not  responsible.  So  long  as  the  bel- 
ligerents, who  are  conceded  the  privilege  of  mu- 
tual destruction, — but  often  with  very  unequal  fa- 
cilities for  engaging  in  the  conflict, — do  not  too 
deeply  offend  the  neutral  states  by  their  activities, 
powerful  nations  feel  justified  in  standing  silent 
and  inactive  while  weak  states  are  crushed  into 
subjection  and  the  laws  of  war,  which  they  them- 
selves have  helped  to  make,  are  violated. 

From  a  moral  point  of  view  this  appears  to  be  a 
strange  proceeding  for  a  member  of  the  ^'family 
of  nations";  but  it  must  be  considered  that  this 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     23 

is  a  family  of  a  very  peculiar  kind.  In  it  each 
member,  by  tacit  consent,  is  believed  to  fulfil  his 
whole  duty  by  looking  solely  after  his  own  inter- 
ests. Governments,  it  is  held,  are  in  each  case  re- 
sponsible to  their  own  constituents  for  the  preser- 
vation of  the  safety  and  well-being  of  the  nations 
intrusted  to  their  care,  and  consequently  they  can- 
not act  with  the  freedom  of  a  private  person. 
They  may  not,  therefore,  incontinently  plunge 
their  people  into  war  without  reasons  that  involve 
the  national  interests.  Until  there  is  a  better  or- 
ganization of  international  relations,  this  condi- 
tion must  continue ;  but  it  is  rapidly  coming  to  be 
perceived  that,  if  civilization  is  not  to  suffer  ship- 
wreck, a  better  organization  must  be  sought. 

Before  attempting  to  find  a  basis  for  a  revision 
of  international  relations  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
how  intimately  national  interests  have  become  as- 
sociated with  war.  For  a  long  time,  all  the  in- 
terests of  the  state  were  regarded  as  personal  to 
the  sovereign.  All  its  territory  was  his  territory. 
All  the  property  of  the  nation  was  his  property, 
of  which  the  people  enjoyed  only  the  usufruct. 
Even  their  persons  and  their  lives  were  at  his  dis- 


24     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

posal,  for  they  were  in  all  respects  his  subjects. 

To-day  the  identity  of  the  sovereign  is  changed, 
but  not  the  conception  of  sovereignty.  The  peo- 
ple, standing  in  the  place  of  the  sovereign,  claim 
the  right  of  succession  to  all  the  royal  preroga- 
tives. The  national  interests  have  become  their 
interests.  The  appeal  to  their  patriotism  rests 
upon  this  ground.  The  power,  gain,  and  glory 
of  the  state  are  represented  to  be  theirs.  Even 
where  it  has  not  entirely  superseded  the  monarch, 
the  nation  believes  itself  to  have  entered  into  part- 
nership with  him,  and  the  people  consider  them- 
selves shareholders  in  the  vast  enterprise  of  ex- 
panding dominion.  Even  the  beggar  in  the  street 
is  assured  that  it  is  his  country;  and,  though 
ragged  and  hungry,  he  takes  a  pride  in  his  pro- 
prietorship. 

It  is  the  nation's  territory,  industry,  commerce, 
and  prestige  that  are  now  in  question.  And  gov- 
ernment, even  the  government  of  the  people,  is  no 
longer  merely  protective.  It  enters  into  every 
kind  of  business,  owns  railways,  steamship  lines, 
manufactories,  everything  involving  the  life  and 
prosperity  of  the  people.  The  state  has  become 
an  economic  as  well  as  a  political  organ  of  society. 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     25 

The  modern  national  state  is,  in  fact,  a  stupend- 
ous and  autonomous  business  corporation,  the 
most  portentous  and  the  most  lawless  business 
trust,  and  views  other  nations  as  its  business 
rivals,  aiming  at  the  control  of  foreign  markets, 
and  of  the  sources  of  raw  materials  wherever 
they  may  exist.  And  these  vast  economic  entities, 
with  their  vision  fixed  on  gain,  combine  not  only 
the  command  of  armies  and  navies,  but  absolute 
freedom  from  effective  legal  restriction  with  im- 
mensely concentrated  wealth  such  as  the  kings 
and  emperors  of  the  past  never  had  at  their  dis- 
posal. 

Whatever,  from  an  internal  and  social  point  of 
view,  the  merits  or  defects  of  the  extension  of  state 
functions  may  be,  they  are  bristling  with  possi- 
bilities of  war,  and  when  modern  nations  engage 
in  it,  it  is  no  longer  a  dynastic  adventure,  but  a 
people's  war.  Commanding  the  strength  and  re- 
sources of  a  whole  people,  and  acting  for  its  al- 
leged interests,  these  great  economic  corporations 
are  fitted  for  aggression  as  well  as  for  defense. 
If  they  were  subject  to  the  usual  laws  of  business 
that  prevail  in  the  regulation  of  private  enter- 
prises within  their  own  borders,  in  accordance 


26     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

with  the  principles  they  apply  at  home,  these 
mailed  and  armed  knights  of  trade  might  not  be 
dangerous  to  the  world's  peace;  but  they  are  not 
subject  to  these,  or  to  any  such  regulations.  They 
recognize  no  law  which  they  feel  themselves 
obliged  to  obey.  Inheriting  by  tradition  from  the 
past  alleged  rights  of  absolute  sovereignty,  and 
equipped  with  military  forces  on  land  and  sea, 
they  are  engaged  in  a  struggle  for  supremacy 
which  they  would  not  for  a  moment  permit  within 
their  own  legal  jurisdiction.  Were  a  similar  or- 
ganization formed  within  their  own  borders, 
adopting  as  its  principles  of  action  the  privileges 
usually  claimed  by  sovereign  states,  it  would  be 
promptly  and  ruthlessly  suppressed  as  a  danger- 
ous outlaw. 

This  statement  implies  no  reflection  upon  any 
particular  nation,  for  all  to  some  extent  share  in 
the  responsibility.  What  is  here  condemned  as 
essentially  unsocial  and  anarchic  is  the  indiffer- 
ence of  these  great  national  economic  corporations 
to  one  another's  rights,  and  above  all  the  absence 
in  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  is  now  understood,  of 
accepted  regulations  such  as  the  lesser  constituent 
elements  of  the  business  world  are  required  by 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     27 

these  very  states  to  obey  under  their  authority.  If 
civilization  is  to  endure,  and  nations  are  not  to 
become  privileged  highway  robbers  on  the  land 
and  pirates  on  the  sea,  this  part  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions must  be  revised  not  only  as  respects  the 
rules  of  war,  but  the  rules  of  peace.  In  so  far  as 
a  nation  is  a  business  entity  it  should  be  governed 
by  the  same  principles  in  its  dealings  with  other 
nations  as  civilized  states  apply  to  business  within 
their  own  limits.  But  international  law  has  not 
yet  i:eached  the  stage  of  formal  development  where 
this  is  recognized.  It  is  still  under  the  influence 
of  the  inherited  customs  of  the  past,  the  baneful 
fiction  of  an  absolute  sovereign  prerogative.  Just 
as  Christendom  found  that  it  was  not  in  fact  so 
organized  as  to  restrain  the  Hun  and  the  Tartar, 
so  we  are  discovering  that  civilization  is  not  yet 
so  organized  as  to  restrain  their  modern  counter- 
parts. So  long  as  international  business  is  con- 
trolled by  an  absolute  conception  of  sovereignty, 
and  sustained  by  military  force,  there  will  be  no 
prospect  of  either  peace  or  equity  in  the  world. 

Let  us  not  here  undertake  to  speak  of  remedies. 
We  must  first  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  situ- 


28     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

ation.  Nor  should  we  here  attempt  to  apportion 
blame,  which  would  only  end  in  bitter  controversy. 
If  the  evil  is  in  the  system,  then  it  is  the  system 
that  must  be  changed ;  and  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  inquire  how  to  change  it  and  to  pronounce 
specific  condemnations  when  we  know  what 
change  is  required  and  who  may  refuse  to  par- 
ticipate in  making  it. 

Undoubtedly,  we  have  all  of  us  been  cherishing 
illusions.  Let  us,  then,  endeavor  to  dissipate 
them. 

We  have  assumed  that  in  some  mystical  manner 
progress  is  inherent  in  society ;  that  it  is  necessarily 
produced  by  natural  laws ;  that  the  mere  duration 
of  time  carries  us  forward  to  perfection ;  and  that 
the  older  civilization  becomes,  the  wiser  it  tends 
to  be.  Trusting  to  these  baseless  generalities,  we 
have  in  a  spirit  of  optimism  forgotten  that  we  have 
duties  to  perform,  renunciations  to  make,  and 
sacrifices  to  offer  if  the  state,  or  the  so-called 
society  of  states,  is  to  prosper.  We  have  formed 
the  habit  of  looking  to  the  state  as  a  source  of 
personal  benefit  to  ourselves,  which  calls  for  only 
the  smallest  contributions  from  us  in  return.  We 
have  made  exorbitant  demands  upon  it,  as  undis- 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     29 

ciplined  children  extort  privileges  from  over-in- 
dulgent parents.  We  have  wanted  better  wages, 
better  prices  for  our  commodities,  better  oppor- 
tunities of  trade,  better  conditions  of  life,  free 
schools,  free  books,  playgrounds,  public  provi- 
sions of  every  kind  at  the  expense  of  the  state.  In 
order  to  obtain  these  benefits,  some  have  desired 
that  the  state  should  become  omnipotent,  seeking 
to  augment  its  resources  by  despoiling  the  rich 
within  its  limits,  and  exploiting  or  even  conquer- 
ing foreign  territory  wrested  from  other  peoples, 
in  the  belief  that  this  would  render  it  easier  to 
satisfy  their  desires,  and  through  its  increased 
power  become  the  dispenser  of  happiness.  When 
for  this  purpose  armies  and  navies  have  been  re- 
quired, it  has  usually  been  easy  to  obtain  them; 
for  may  not  the  state,  being  a  sovereign  power, 
do  all  things  necessary  for  its  own  interest? 
Thus  men's  consciences  have  been  put  to  rest. 

This  tendency  of  modern  states  and  the  sudden 
revelation  of  its  meaning  have  been  forcibly  ex- 
pressed by  a  recent  writer.     He  says: 

A  few  more  teasings,  a  few  more  pistols  held  at  the 
head  of  the  state,  and  a  scheme,  we  were  expecting,  would 
be  forthcoming  that  would  render  us  all  happy  in  spite 


30     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

of  ourselves.  Then,  one  fine  morning  in  August,  there 
came  a  rude  awakening.  We  got  a  message  from  the 
state  couched  in  language  we  had  never  heard  before.  "I 
require  you,"  said  the  state,  "to  place  your  property  and 
your  lives  at  my  service.  Now,  and  for  some  time  to 
come,  I  give  nothing,  but  ask  for  everything.  Arm  your- 
selves for  my  defense.  Give  me  your  sons,  and  be  will- 
ing that  they  should  die  for  me.  Repay  what  you  owe 
me.     My  turn  has  come." 

And  thus  Europe  is  now  called  upon  to  pay  the 
debt  its  theory  of  the  state  and  of  the  state's  om- 
nipotence has  incurred. 

We  have  also  trusted  blindly  to  the  process  of 
social  evolution.  Industrialism  and  commerce, 
we  have  assumed,  will  automatically  bring  in  a 
new  era.  Before  it  militarism,  the  grim  relic  of 
the  old  regime,  will  disappear.  There  will  soon 
be  no  need  for  fighting.  When  all  the  world 
turns  to  industry,  as  it  will,  wars  will  cease. 
Commerce  will  cement  the  nations  together  and 
create  a  perfect  solidarity  of  interests. 

But  the  present  war  has  thrown  a  new  light 
on  the  relations  of  militarism  and  industry. 
Forty  years  ago,  Herbert  Spencer,  with  his  strong 
proclivity  for  brilliant  generalization,  fancied 
that  the  age  of  militarism  was  soon  to  be  super- 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     31 

seded  by  an  age  of  universal  industrialism.  He 
described  their  opposite  polities,  the  conditions  of 
the  gradual  transition,  and  the  final  triumph  of 
industry  over  militancy.  But  what  do  we  now 
behold?  Has  militarism  diminished  with  the 
growth  of  industry?  Has  not  militarism  simply 
become  more  titanic  and  even  more  demoniacal  by 
the  aid  of  industry,  until  war  has  become  the  most 
stupendous  problem  of  modern  mechanics  ?  And 
now  we  see  militarism  wholly  absorbing  industry, 
claiming  all  its  resources,  and  even  organizing 
and  commanding  it. 

And  why  is  this?  It  is  because  the  state  as  a 
business  corporation  is  employing  military  force 
as  its  advance  agent,  struggling  for  the  control  of 
markets  and  resources,  and  the  command  of  new 
peoples  who  are  to  feed  and  move  the  awful  en- 
ginery of  war. 

And  this  condition  of  the  world  is  the  logical 
outcome  of  the  inherited  theory  of  the  state.  This 
fact  is  now  beginning  to  be  ;recognized,  and  re- 
cently there  has  been  much  said  regarding  impe- 
rialism and  democracy,  often  assuming  that  the 
mere  internal  form  of  government  alone  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  international  situation  in  Eu- 


32     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

rope.  But  it  is  not  the  form,  it  is  the  spirit,  and 
above  all  the  postulates,  of  government  that  are 
at  fault.  If  democracies  may  act  according  to 
their  "good  pleasure,"  if  the  mere  power  of  ma- 
jorities is  to  rule  without  restraint,  if  there  are 
no  sacred  and  controlling  principles  of  action,  in 
what  respect  is  a  multiple  sovereign  superior  to  a 
single  autocrat?  If  the  private  greed  of  a  people 
is  sustained  by  the  pretensions  of  absolutism  in 
international  affairs,  democracy  itself  becpmes  im- 
perial, without  accepting  the  principles  of  equity 
which  have  sometimes  given  dignity  to  the  im- 
perial idea.  In  truth,  the  most  dangerous  con- 
ceivable enemy  to  peace  and  justice  would  be  a 
group  of  competitive  democracies  delirious  with 
unsatisfied  desires. 

If  there  is  to  be  a  new  Europe,  it  must  not  look 
for  new  forms  of  organization  so  much  as  for  a 
new  spirit  of  action.  It  must  renounce  altogether 
its  evil  heritage.  It  must  reconstruct  its  theory 
of  the  state  as  an  absolute  autonomous  entity. 
If  the  state  continues  to  be  a  business  corporation, 
as  it  probably  in  some  sense  will,  then  it  must 
abandon  the  conception  of  sovereignty  as  an  un- 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     33 

limited  right  to  act  in  any  way  it  pleases  under 
the  cover  of  national  interests  and  necessity.  It 
must  consent  to  be  governed  by  ethical  principles. 
It  must  not  demand  something  for  nothing,  it  must 
not  make  its  power  the  measure  of  its  action,  it 
must  not  put  its  interests  above  its  obligations. 
It  may  plead  them,  it  may  argue  them,  and  it  may 
use  its  business  advantages  justly  to  enforce  them ; 
but  it  may  not  threaten  the  life  or  appropriate  the 
property  of  its  neighbors  or  insist  upon  controlling 
them  on  its  own  terms.  It  may  display  its  wares, 
proclaim  their  excellence,  fix  its  own  prices,  buy 
and  sell  where  it  finds  its  advantage;  but  it  must 
not  bring  to  bear  a  machine-gun  as  a  means  of 
persuasion  upon  its  rival  across  the  street. 

No  one  can  make  a  thorough  and  impartial  in- 
quiry into  the  causes  of  the  present  European 
conflict  without  perceiving  that  their  roots  run 
deep  into  the  soil  of  trade  rivalry.  Beneath  the 
apparent  political  antagonisms  are  the  economic 
aspirations  that  have  produced  them.  In  the 
light  of  history  we  can  no  longer  accept  the  doc- 
trine that  industrialism  and  commercialism  by  a 
process  of  natural  evolution  automatically  super- 
sede militarism.     On  the  contrary,  we  perceive 


34     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

that  militarism  on  the  one  hand,  and  industry 
and  commerce  on  the  other,  are  at  present  part- 
ners rather  than  antagonists.  They  are  differ- 
ent, but  closely  associated,  activities  of  modern 
business  policy  as  conducted  by  the  state.  If 
there  were  no  economic  questions  involved,  the 
conflict  of  nationalities  could  soon  be  ended. 
Modern  wars  are  primarily  trade  wars.  Modern 
armies  and  navies  are  not  maintained  for  the 
purpose  of  ruthlessly  taking  human  life  or  of 
covering  rulers  with  glory.  They  are,  on  the  one 
hand,  armed  guardians  of  economic  advantages 
already  possessed;  and,  on  the  other,  agents  of 
intended  future  depredation,  gradually  organ- 
ized for  purposes  alleged  to  be  innocent,  and  at 
what  is  esteemed  the  auspicious  moment  des- 
patched upon  their  mission  of  aggression.  In- 
ternational misunderstandings  are  readily  ad- 
justed where  there  is  the  will  to  adjust  them;  but 
against  the  deliberately  formed  policies  of  na- 
tional business  expansion — ^the  reaching  out  for 
new  territory,  increased  population,  war  indem- 
nities, coaling  stations,  trade  monopolies,  control 
of  markets,  supplies  of  raw  materials,  and  advan- 
tageous treaty  privileges,  to  be  procured  under  the 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     35 

shadow  of  the  sword — there  is  no  defense  except 
the  power  to  thwart  or  obstruct  them  by  armed 
resistance. 

We  must,  then,  definitely  abandon  the  thesis 
that  industrialism  is  essentially  pacific,  and  will 
eventually  automatically  disband  armies  and 
navies,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  war.  On  the  con- 
trary, modern  armies  and  navies  are  the  result 
of  trade  rivalry,  and  are  justified  to  those  who 
support  them  on  the  ground  that  there  are  na- 
tional interests  to  be  defended  or  advantages  to  be 
attained  by  their  existence.  So  long  as  even  one 
powerful  nation  retains  its  heritage  of  evil  and  in- 
sists that  it  may  employ  its  armies  or  navies  ag- 
gressively as  an  agency  in  its  national  business; 
so  long,  to  put  the  matter  directly,  as  the  nations 
must  buy  and  sell,  travel  and  exchange,  negotiate 
and  deliver,  with  bayonets  at  their  breasts,  so 
long  defensive  armies  and  navies  will  be  neces- 
sary, and  the  battle  for  civilization  must  go  on. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  not  the  poorest 
nations,  but  the  richest,  where  discontent  is  deep- 
est and  most  widespread.  It  is  the  great  powers 
that  are  most  inclined  to  war,  and  are  most  fully 
prepared  to  make  it;  and  the  reason  is  not  diffi- 


36     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

cult  to  discern.  The  greater  the  state  the  greater 
its  ambitions.  It  is  easily  within  the  grasp  of 
five  or  six  great  powers  to  secure  the  permanent 
peace  of  the  world,  and,  far  more  important  than 
that,  to  secure  the  observance  of  just  laws  by  all 
nations.  But,  unfortunately,  governments,  feel- 
ing themselves  charged  with  the  duty  of  augment- 
ing the  resources  of  the  state,  find  no  limit  to  their 
ambitions  except  in  their  powers  of  action,  which 
are  great.  The  whole  future  of  the  world  has  in 
the  past  virtually  lain  in  the  hands  of  a  small 
number  of  men,  not  all  of  them  monarchs,  but  the 
recognized  leaders  of  public  thought  and  action 
in  their  respective  nations. 

This  order  of  things  is  less  likely  to  continue 
in  the  future  than  at  any  time  in  the  past.  Far 
less  frequently  than  in  former  times  will  individ- 
ual men  shape  the  destinies  of  nations.  And  this 
is  an  important  augury  for  the  new  Europe. 
Only  a  few  men,  and  they  but  temporarily,  framed 
and  executed  the  policies  that  have,  for  example, 
created  the  British  Empire.  As  the  historian 
Seeley  said,  "We  have  conquered  half  the  world 
in  a  fit  of  absence  of  mind.''  And  in  all  this 
process  the  British  people  have  never  been  con- 


EUROPE'S  HERITAGE  OF  EVIL     37 

suited,  just  as  the  German  people  were  not  con- 
sulted in  the  two  critical  moments  of  their  exist- 
ence; for  in  the  past  peoples  were  seldom  con- 
sulted regarding  their  national  destiny.  But  that 
time  has  passed  forever.  Henceforth  no  intelli- 
gent people  will  ever  be  led  into  the  shambles  of 
aggressive  warfare  without  being  consulted. 
That  is  the  first  mark  of  difference  that  will 
distinguish  the  new  Europe  from. the  old.  And, 
being  consulted,  will  they  not  ask  with  increas- 
ing earnestness  why  nations  cannot  conduct  their 
business  as  the  state  generally  requires  private 
business  to  be  conducted,  in  accordance  with 
reasonable  rules  of  procedure?  Many  negative 
answers  will,  no  doubt,  be  given,  for  governments 
are  tenacious  of  their  traditions ;  but,  nevertheless, 
there  will  be  a  general  revision  of  the  inherited 
conception  of  the  nature  of  the  state,  and  a  percep- 
tion that  world  dominion  is  not  the  prerogative  of 
any  single  nation.  States,  like  individual  men, 
must  admit  their  responsibilities  to  one  another, 
accept  the  obligation  to  obey  just  and  equal  laws 
and  take  their  respective  places  in  the  society  of 
states  in  a  spirit  of  loyalty  to  civilization  as  a 
human  and  not  an  exclusively  national  ideal. 


CHAPTER  II 
INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

DESPITE  the  heritage  of  evil  in  the  absolute 
conception  of  the  state  and  the  relations  be- 
tween states;  and,  in  truth,  on  account  of  it,  men 
of  reflective  habits  of  mind  have  devoted  much  at- 
tention to  the  ideas  that  ought  to  prevail  when, 
either  in  the  course  of  progressive  evolution  or  at 
some  critical  period  of  readjustment,  the  oppor- 
tunity for  amelioration  may  exist. 

At  the  very  outset,  however,  we  are  confronted 
with  the  question  how  far  the  thought  and  pur- 
pose of  man  can  affect  such  vast  issues  as  social, 
political,  and  international  organization.  Judg- 
ing by  the  past,  we  should,  perhaps,  be  led  to  con- 
clude, that  mere  theories  have,  on  the  whole,  very 
little  to  do  with  the  mass  action  of  mankind,  and 
that  such  action  is  almost  universally  determined 
by  the  blind  instincts  and  irresistible  appetites  of 
men  rather  than  by  reason;  with  the  result  that 
it  is  useless  to  expect  that  anything  of  national 

38 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  39 

magnitude  will  happen  simply  because  it  is  rea- 
sonable or  that  international  affairs  will  ever  cease 
to  be  more  unreasonable  than  they  have  been  in 
the  past. 

If  there  were  no  important  change  in  the  human 
units  that  make  up  the  populations  of  what  we 
call  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  this  hope- 
less prospect  might  be  justified;  but,  in  fact,  a 
very  radical  change  has  occurred  in  these  later 
decades.  It  consists  in  an  ever-widening  com- 
mon consciousness  regarding  national  and  inter- 
national affairs.  Great  world  events,  portrayed 
in  terms  generally  intelligible,  and  brought  home 
to  the  masses  of  mankind  everywhere,  have  awak- 
ened the  intelligence  of  the  common  man  as  it  has 
never  been  aroused  before.  In  the  humblest 
walks  of  life  men  are  now  discussing  difficult 
questions  of  jurisprudence  and  diplomacy  in  the 
light  of  stirring  events  of  world-wide  significance, 
and  they  are  asking  one  another.  What  is  to  be- 
come of  civilization?  Will  it  perish  in  the  con- 
flict of  national  interests,  or  will  it  enter  upon  a 
new  era  of  development? 

Justice,  peace,  cooperation,  culture — all  these 
seem  to  be  imperiled  by  national  antagonisms; 


40     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

and  yet  they  are  aspirations  that  all  nations  pro- 
fess to  entertain.  How  may  they  be  realized? 
By  intelligent  organization,  no  doubt;  but  it  must 
be  of  a  more  thorough  kind  and  on  a  larger  scale 
than  has  ever  before  been  attempted.  It  cannot 
stop  at  the  national  boundaries;  it  must  include 
the  whole  family  of  man. 

The  tragic  character  of  the  present  world-con- 
flict has  greatly  stimulated  thought  in  this  direc- 
tion, but  no  plan  of  international  organization  has 
thus  far  been  proposed  which  has  met  with  uni- 
versal approbation  as  likely  to  prove  practicable. 
It  is  an  easy  task  to  outline  an  international  con- 
stitution based  upon  the  principle  of  federation; 
but  all  schemes  of  this  kind  when  applied  to  prac- 
tice are  confronted  with  the  pretensions  of  abso- 
lute sovereignty,  and  the  indisposition  on  the  part 
of  governments  to  surrender  any  of  their  prerog- 
atives. 

Before  great  progress  can  be  made  in  harmon- 
izing national  interests  it  will  be  necessary  to  re- 
consider, in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge  and 
experience,  the  true  nature  of  the  state  and  by  a 
readjustment  of  opinions  upon  that  subject  pre- 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  41 

pare  the  way  for  a  change  in  the  attitude  of  na- 
tions toward  one  another. 

The  present  is  an  unusually  auspicious  moment 
for  reflection  upon  this  subject,  for  in  the  sanguin- 
ary drama  now  enacting  we  are  witnessing  the 
demonstration  of  the  utter  impracticability  of  real- 
izing any  of  the  international  ideals  if  nations, 
having  become  economic  corporations,  are  to  con- 
tend with  one  another  for  the  possession  of  the 
earth  upon  the  assumption  that  superior  military 
power  is  the  source  of  rightful  authority. 

In  so  far  as  that  idea  is  merely  a  historical  in- 
heritance coming  down  to  us  through  the  tacit  ac- 
ceptance of  unfounded  pretentions,  we  may  very 
readily  abandon  it,  as  marking  a  stage  of  social 
evolution  which  we  have  left  behind  us.  But 
the  case  is  not  so  simple.  We  find  that  all  in- 
ternational ideals  are  openly  challenged  and  re- 
pudiated. We  are  told  that,  rightly  conceived, 
the  state  is  incapable  of  compromise;  that  it  is  a 
vehicle  of  authority  and  of  culture  that  cannot, 
even  if  it  would,  refuse  to  execute  its  lofty  mission 
of  expansion  and  transformation. 

The  truth  is  that  the  battle  between  opposing 
theories  of  the  state  has  not  yet  been  fought  out. 


42     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

What  is  the  purpose  of  the  state?  Does  it  exist 
for  the  individual  person,  as  democracy  contends, 
or  does  the  individual  person  exist  for  the  state, 
as  absolutism  asserts  ? 

Deep  down  beneath  all  the  superficial  drift  of 
international  questions  is  a  problem  in  philoso- 
phy, upon  the  solution  of  which  there  is  so  far  no 
agreement. 

As  a  question  of  philosophy  the  opposing  types 
of  conception  regarding  the  nature  of  the  state 
may,  perhaps,  be  best  illustrated  by  comparing  the 
theories  of  Kant  and  Hegel,  the  one  emphasizing 
the  freedom,  development,  and  responsibility  of 
the  individual  man,  the  other  the  power,  the  glory, 
and  the  divinity  of  the  state. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  idea 
of  dynastic  proprietorship  was  already  vanishing, 
and  the  revolutionary  movement,  begun  in  Amer- 
ica and  continued  in  France  and  throughout  Eu- 
rope, demanded  a  reconstruction  of  the  idea  of 
government.  At  that  time  the  pretensions  of  royal 
absolutism  were  challenged  as  they  had  never 
been  before.  Then  followed  an  effort  at  recon- 
struction, and,  more  than  any  other  of  that  gen- 
eration, Immanuel  Kant  attempted  to  show  that 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  43 

there  is  a  truly  philosophic  foundation  for  the  ex- 
istence and  authority  of  the  state  as  a  human  in- 
stitution. 

It  is  Kant  who  best  marks  the  transition  to 
distinctively  modern  thought  not  only  on  account 
of  his  having  lived  in  the  period  of  revolt  against 
absolutism,  but  on  account  of  the  place  he  assigns 
to  man  as  a  factor  in  history.  To  his  mind  the 
great  necessity  for  man  is  freedom.  All  the  forces 
of  humanity  are  locked  up  in  the  possibilities  of 
the  individual  being.  The  great  problem  of  so- 
ciety is  to  release  the  free  activity  of  human  fac- 
ulties. No  one  had  ever  so  fully  realized  the  in- 
herent dignity  of  personality,  or  urged  so  strongly 
its  extrication  from  the  mechanism  of  dynamic 
process.  The  authority  that  should  govern  per- 
sons, he  thinks,  should  not  come  from  without, 
either  from  nature  on  the  one  hand  or  the  state 
on  the  other.  The  reason  for  the  state  is  to  be 
found  in  the  nature  of  man  as  a  self-determining, 
rational,  and  responsible  being.  Personality  is 
not  a  means  to  an  end;  it  is  an  end  in  itself,  and 
therefore  should  not  be  treated  as  a  mere  thing, 
or  made  the  creature,  the  instrument,  or  the  vic- 
tim of  arbitrary  force. 


44     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Government,  then,  should  be  organized  for  hu- 
man service  and  not  merely  for  the  service  of  a 
class  to  the  detriment  of  another  class,  but  for 
society  as  a  whole.  It  must,  no  doubt,  be  terri- 
torial, and  therefore  circumscribed  in  its  jurisdic- 
tion; that  is,  there  may  be,  and  in  fact  must  be, 
many  governments  but  they  should  all  have  the 
same  purpose.  The  state  in  its  proper  sense  is  a 
structure  of  moral  order,  the  creation  of  self- 
conscious  reason,  aiming  at  the  establishment  of 
an  external  support  of  human  rights  by  an  out- 
ward defense  of  an  inner  principle.  It  is  to  be 
sharply  distinguished  from  society,  which  is  a  nat- 
ural product.  In  its  perfection  it  would  be  the 
external  harmony  of  the  activities  resulting  from 
personal  freedom.  The  business  of  government, 
therefore,  is  to  remove  the  hindrances  to  freedom, 
which  are  found  in  the  love  of  power,  of  glory, 
and  of  gain,  motives  engendered  by  the  natural 
instincts  which  man  shares  with  the  lower 
animals. 

Such  a  conception  appears  at  first  sight  to  be 
not  only  cosmopolitan,  but  anti-national.  Cos- 
mopolitan it  undoubtedly  is,  and  therein  lies  the 
possibility  of  ultimately  realizing  the  idea  of  a 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  45 

true  society  of  states;  but  it  is  not  anti-national 
in  the  sense  of  denying  the  value  and  necessity 
of  the  nation.  What  it  aims  at  is  the  extension 
of  local  order  until  it  becomes  general  order,  by 
so  conceiving  the  state  as  to  allow  of  its  coopera- 
tion with  other  states,  either  by  federation,  or 
some  other  correlation,  with  the  purpose  of  insur- 
ing universal  harmony  and,  therefore,  permanent 
peace. 

But  in  order  to  reach  this  result  Kant  holds  that 
the  "holy  and  inviolable  law  of  reason"  must  tri- 
umph over  the  impulses  of  the  natural  man  not 
by  military  force,  for  freedom  and  violence  are 
incompatible,  but  by  the  gradual  evolution  of 
mankind  through  the  action  of  rational  intelli- 
gence. 

Here  is  presented,  no  doubt,  a  conception  of 
the  state  which  renders  internationalism  possible 
without  the  destruction  of  nationalism.  But  we 
find  in  Kant  only  the  beginning  of  a  complete  po- 
litical philosophy,  for  the  reason  that  he  had  not 
seen  his  own  idea  of  personality  as  the  basis  of 
political  organization  anywhere  effectively  worked 
out.  He  had  not  witnessed  the  development  of 
constitutionalism,  which  was  only  just  asserting 


46     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

itself,  and  his  conservative  spirit  in  matters  prac- 
tical was  rudely  shocked  by  the  enormities  of  the 
French  Revolution.  Yet  he  perceived  that  it  was 
upon  the  inherent  rights  of  the  individual  man 
that  the  state  must  be  founded  if  despotism  was 
to  be  abolished.  But  he  also  apprehended  the 
deeper  truth  that  rights  without  duties  cannot  be 
sustained,  and  he  therefore  laid  the  principal 
stress  upon  duty — duty  to  the  state  and  duty  to 
all  mankind. 

While  Kant's  conception  of  the  state  was  mak- 
ing practical  progress  in  other  parts  of  the  world, 
his  Fatherland  was  harried  by  invasion,  subju- 
gated by  conquest,  and  in  the  Napoleonic  domina- 
tion a  new  imperialism  was  holding  all  conti- 
nental Europe  in  its  grasp.  Fichte  applied  the 
Kantian  conception  of  duty  to  the  fallen  fortunes 
of  the  Prussian  state,  for  a  strong  doctrine  of 
nationalism  became  the  necessity  of  the  hour. 
But  it  was  Hegel,  after  liberation  had  been 
achieved,  who,  determined  to  philosophize  every- 
thing, made  the  state  the  shrine  of  the  indwelling 
absolute,  and  for  the  cosmopolitanism  of  Kant 
was  substituted  a  theory  of  the  state  which  pro- 
claimed it  an  organ  of  divine  action,  identified 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  47 

patriotism  with  religion,  and  rendered  the  separ- 
ate nationalities  as  unapproachable  for  purposes 
of  rational  understanding  as  the  planets  in  the 
solar  system. 

For  Hegel  the  individual  man  is  nothing  in 
himself.  Whatever  he  has  of  moral  personality 
is  the  creation  of  the  state.  It  is  true  that  in  his 
writings  Hegel  begins  with  personal  conscious- 
ness as  a  fundamental  fact  in  the  manner  of 
Kant ;  but  in  his  fully  developed  philosophy,  after 
he  has  assumed  the  task  of  glorifying  the  state, 
he  makes  of  it  the  only  vehicle  through  which 
the  absolute  reaches  humanity,  and  he  always 
means  by  it  the  Prussian  state, — the  Prussian 
state,  as  Haym  has  said,  as  it  existed  in  1821, 
when  Hegel  wrote. 

But  this  was  a  necessary  corollary  of  Hegel's 
conception  of  history  as  immanent  reason.  It  was 
idle,  he  thought,  to  speak  of  what  a  state  "ought 
to  be."  Being  an  incarnation  of  the  absolute, 
it  is  what  it  is,  and  cannot  be  other  than  it  is.  It 
is  right  in  all  it  does.  All  changes  are  divine 
acts.  The  individual  man  must  take  his  orders 
from  the  state,  because  it  alone  has  the  right  to 
command.     The  state  being  an  embodiment  of 


48     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

the  absolute,  it  is  foolish  to  try  to  make  constitu- 
tions, as  if  we  had  any  right  of  choice.  Parlia- 
ments are  only  mediating  bodies,  which  should 
take  their  directions  from  the  permanent  ruler 
in  order  to  enlighten  the  masses  as  to  how  they 
are  to  execute  these  orders.  The  state  is  an  or- 
ganism in  which  every  constituent  part  is  sub- 
ject to  the  will  of  the  whole.  But  as  this  unity 
is  not  found  in  society  as  a  whole,  it  must  be 
sought  in  the  will  of  a  dominant  person,  the  mon- 
arch, through  whom  the  absolute  speaks.  And 
thus  the  philosopher  sinks  at  last  into  the  syco- 
phant, crowning  his  system  with  the  dogma  of 
divine  right,  and  ending  with  the  adulation  of  a 
notoriously  weak  and  reactionary  king. 

Evidently,  if  all  states  are  like  this, — and  this  is 
intended  as  a  theory  of  the  state  in  the  abstract, — 
there  can  be  no  restraint  upon  the  purpose  of  the 
monarch.  He  is  absolute,  and  all  states  are 
absolute.  There  being  no  law  but  their  own  will, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  international  law; 
and,  as  the  state's  omnipotence  includes  the  un- 
limited right  of  making  war  at  the  will  of  the 
sovereign,  there  cannot  be  a  permanent  peace. 
Such  a  condition  is  an  *^empty  dream."     It  is 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  49 

through  war  that  the  absolute  carries  forward  the 
work  of  history. 

Almost  with  unanimity,  after  being  for  a  time 
under  the  spell  of  Hegel's  speculations,  some 
decades  ago  philosophers  abandoned  absolutism, 
and  raised  the  cry,  "Back  to  Kant!"  In  the 
philosophy  of  the  state,  however,  Hegel  still  ex- 
erts an  influence.  The  picture  of  it  as  a  self- 
subsisting  and  dominant  power  serves  well  the  de- 
signs of  imperial  ambition.  Religion,  war,  and 
further  domination  all  seem  to  be  reconciled  by 
the  assertion  that  the  individual  man  exists  for 
the  state,  and  that  the  state  is  not  founded  on  the 
rights  of  the  individual  man. 

Hence  there  is  to-day  a  contest  between  these 
opposing  conceptions — a  contest  upon  the  decision 
of  which  the  future  of  international  relations 
throughout  the  world  will  depend.  If,  as  Kant's 
theory  assumes,  law  is  the  formulation  of  justice 
and  equity,  resulting  from  a  consensus  of  social 
needs  interpreted  in  the  light  of  reason,  of  which 
the  state  is  an  expression,  then  there  is  law  for 
states  as  well  as  for  individual  men.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  law  is  a  sovereign  decree  emanating 
from  a  dominant  will  regardless  of  limitations, 


50     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

there  can  be  no  law  for  states  until  such  a  supe- 
rior will  is  established  over  them. 


Both  ideas  have  been  worked  out  in  the  devel- 
opment of  modern  states.  Some  have  followed 
the  absolutist  theory  even  in  their  internal  or- 
ganization; and  in  these  authority  without  re- 
striction emanates  from  a  superior,  an  individual 
ruler  or  a  governing  class.  In  others  authority 
proceeds  from  the  constituents  of  the  state  under 
definite  forms  of  limitation,  in  which  checks  upon 
the  pretensions  of  absolute  sovereignty  are  embod- 
ied in  the  very  structure  of  government.  None 
but  states  of  the  latter  kind  are  truly  constitu- 
tional. They  are  by  their  very  nature  creations 
of  law.  They  recognize  the  fact  that  whatever 
rightful  authority  there  is  in  the  world  is  derived 
from  claims  to  justice  antecedent  to  all  legislation 
and  inherent  in  personality.  When  all  the  re- 
sources of  sophistry  have  been  exhausted  in  try- 
ing to  derive  rights  from  power, — that  is,  to  prove 
that  might  is  right, — we  shall  be  obliged  to  go 
back  to  Kant  and  admit  that  human  personality 
as  such  is  a  source  of  claims  to  justice  and  equity, 
or  we  must  confess  that  right  and  wrong  are 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  51 

merely  imaginary  distinctions,  and  jurisprudence 
a  system  of  purely  mechanical  ideas. 

It  has  been  said  that  all  men  may  have  'inter- 
ests," but  no  one  has  any  "rights"  until  govern- 
ment has  accorded  them  by  an  act  of  legislation. 
In  some  technical  sense  this  may  be  true,  but  in  a 
broad  human  sense  it  is  not  true.  If  it  were  true, 
it  would  be  absurd  to  fight  for  another  man's 
rights.  But  all  the  progress  the  world  has  ever 
made,  all  that  distinguishes  civilization  from  bar- 
barism, springs  from  someone's  sense  of  duty, 
which  means  simply  the  recognition  of  another 
man's  right,  and  this  is  as  real  when  it  is  denied 
as  when  it  is  conceded. 

Certainly  these  inherent  rights  do  not  belong  to 
human  beings  in  an  isolated  and  non-social  state, 
for  men  never  existed  in  a  non-social  state.  All 
men  are  members  of  a  series  and  members  of  a 
group,  and  it  is  in  these  relations  that  they  recog- 
nize their  claims  to  justice  and  to  equity,  which 
remain  the  same  whether  they  are  granted  or  not. 

Thus  the  idea  of  law  is  a  part  of  the  mental 
furniture  of  every  being  capable  of  an  act  of  re- 
flection. To  say  with  Hegel — or  with  Austin,  or 
with  any  legal  positivist — that  there  is  and  can 


52     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

be  no  international  law,  because  there  is  no  in- 
ternational sovereign  to  decree  it,  is  to  define  law 
by  a  mere  accident  and  not  by  its  essential  nature, 
that  is,  by  the  fact  that  laws  have  sometimes,  but 
certainly  not  generally,  been  issued  as  sovereign 
decrees. 

It  is  singular  how  this  notion  lingers.  A 
modern  disciple  of  Hegel,  for  example,  argues 
thus: 

The  whole  of  international  law  rests  on  the  principle 
that  treaties  are  to  be  observed.  But  behind  all  this  there 
is  the  sheer  fact  of  the  separate  individual  Powers,  each 
absolute  in  its  limited  area;  so  that,  at  bottom,  the  whole 
fabric  of  international  rules  and  customs  is  just  an  agree- 
ment of  separate  wills,  and  not  an  expression  of  a  single 
general  will. 

And  he  sees  in  this  a  reason  why  leagues  and 
federations  cannot  have  the  quality  of  law,  forget- 
ful of  the  fact  that  in  all  modern  constitutional 
states  every  law  of  every  legislative  body  is  a  re- 
sult arrived  at  by  an  agreement  of  separate  wills 
expressed  in  the  votes  of  the  legislators.  But  if 
the  separate  wills  of  a  congress  or  a  parliament 
may  formulate  a  law,  why  may  not  separate  and 
independent  states  formulate  a  law  for  the  gov- 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  53 

ernment  of  their  own  conduct?  And  having 
pledged  themselves  to  it,  being  law  in  the  most 
perfect  sense,  are  they  not  bound  by  it? 

There  is,  it  must  be  admitted,  an  ineffaceable 
distinction  between  the  nature  of  a  state,  even  a 
constitutional  state,  and  a  human  being.  The 
state  is  the  guardian  of  private  rights  and  inter- 
ests. It  acts  for  its  constituents  in  a  fiduciary 
capacity.  It  is,  indeed,  an  "ark. of  safety"  to 
which  communities  of  men  have  committed  the 
keeping  of  their  lives  and  treasures  on  the  troubled 
waters  of  an  uncharted  world.  "It  is  the  vehicle 
which  carries  the  whole  value  of  life."  Further- 
more, it  exists  in  a  world  of  hostile  forces. 
"In  the  world,  right  can  only  prevail  through 
might."  Therefore  the  state  must  be  strong, 
and  to  be  strong  it  must  be  armed,  as  the  indi- 
vidual man  under  the  protection  of  the  state 
need  not  be.  How  otherwise  can  it  fulfil  its 
sacred  trust? 

All  this  is  true  and  of  the  first  importance ;  but, 
while  it  justifies  the  possession  of  force  by  the 
state,  it  makes  it  very  plain  that  the  strength 
of  the  state  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  merely  a 
means — an  instrument  for  the  protection  of  rights 


54     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

and  interests  intrusted  to  its  care.  The  end  of  the 
state  is,  therefore,  not  aggression,  or  profit,  or 
power,  but  justice.  The  primary  reason  for  the 
existence  of  a  government  is  that  each  citizen  shall 
be  protected  in  his  rights. 

It  is  this  that  distinguishes  the  state  from  other 
forms  of  human  association.  Its  function  is 
primarily  protective.  Upon  this  foundation  rest 
all  its  special  and  peculiar  prerogatives.  Here  is 
the  reason  for  its  authority,  but  this  is  limited 
by  the  reason  for  its  existence.  Society  has  mani- 
fold functions,  but  they  may  be  normally  left  to  in- 
dividual and  corporate  enterprise  within  the 
state,  which  may  be  a  complete  and  perfect  ''body 
politic"  without  them.  On  the  other  hand,  these 
functions  may  be  in  part,  and  even  to  a  great 
extent,  taken  over  and  performed  by  the  state, 
but  they  are  not  necessary  to  its  existence.  They 
do,  however,  modify  its  character.  When  the 
state,  in  addition  to  its  protective  function,  as- 
sumes those  of  industry,  transportation,  and  com- 
merce, as  the  modern  state  sometimes  does,  it  un- 
dergoes a  radical  transformation.  It  itself  then 
becomes  a  business  corporation,  a  rival,  and  a 
competitor  in  the  world  of  trade. 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  55 

Now  what  is  most  important  to  consider  is  that, 
while  this  expansion  of  its  functions  profoundly 
changes  the  character  of  the  state,  it  does  not  con- 
fer upon  it  any  new  authority.  It  does  multiply 
and  extend  its  interests,  but  it  does  not  in  any 
respect  render  the  state  absolute  or  endow  it  with 
unlimited  right  of  command.  Mere  business  can- 
not be  regarded  as  a  source  of  absolute  sover- 
eignty. 

For  constitutional  states,  therefore, — that  is, 
for  governments  based  upon  the  protection  of 
human  rights,  and  not  upon  some  superhuman 
claim  to  authority,  like  that  of  the  divine  right  of 
the  monarch, — there  is  no  logical  ground  for 
claiming  sovereign  rights  in  the  absolutist  sense. 
Such  states  are  free  and  independent,  but  they 
do  not  represent  the  will  to  power.  They  repre- 
sent and  embody  the  will  to  justice ;  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice  are,  ipso  facto,  their  law  of  action. 
Everything  violative  of  justice  is  for  them  usur- 
pation. They  may  commit  acts  of  injustice,  they 
may  explain  them,  they  may  excuse  them;  but 
they  cannot  logically  justify  them.  As  an  organ 
of  justice  the  state  exceeds  its  prerogatives  when 
it  is  unjust. 


56     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Undoubtedly  this  implies  that  international  law 
is  self-subsistent.  For  constitutional  states  it  ex- 
ists regardless  of  customs  and  conventions,  and 
would  be  their  law  if  no  customs  or  conventions 
had  ever  existed,  for  its  principles  enter  into  their 
very  purpose  and  structure.  For  them  to  deny 
these  principles  in  their  conduct  would  be  to  de- 
nature themselves. 

Written  or  unwritten,  international  law  is  ac- 
cepted by  all  constitutional  states  as  binding  upon 
them.  By  some,  as  in  the  United  States,  it  is  ex- 
pressly declared  to  be  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 
Acceptance  of  it  should  be  the  condition  of  the 
recognition  of  a  government;  for  in  so  far  as  a 
community  of  men  does  not  admit  its  existence,  it 
is  not  a  state  in  any  defensible  sense.  An  aggre- 
gation of  de  facto  forces  it  may  be,  but  in  so  far 
as  it  is  merely  an  embodiment  of  the  will  to  power 
and  not  the  will  to  justice,  it  falls  below  statehood 
and  is  merely  a  predatory  band,  an  outlaw  that 
deserves  to  be  proscribed  and  refused  a  place  in 
the  society  of  states. 

In  practice  the  specific  rules  of  international 
law  are  established  by  a  general  consensus.  They 
are  sometimes  inferred  from  custom  and  some- 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  57 

times  defined  in  conventions;  but  these  rules  are 
admitted  to  be  merely  partial  and  tentative  ef- 
forts to  express  in  definite  formulae  what  justice 
and  equity  demand.  In  this  respect  international 
law  is  comparable  with  science.  As  the  man  of 
science  is  engaged  in  a  continuous  effort  to  dis- 
cover and  state  truth,  so  the  jurist  and  the  states- 
man, in  so  far  as  they  are  really  such,  persistently 
seek  to  formulate  the  requirements  of  justice.  In 
both  cases  the  formulae  arrived  at  may  be  plainly 
incomplete;  but  justice,  like  truth,  is  not  a 
mere  creation  of  the  mind.  It  is  an  object  of 
research  and  discovery;  and  as  far  as  it  is  dis- 
covered and  agreed  upon  it  is  obligatory,  al- 
though our  knowledge  of  it  may  still  be  incom- 
plete. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  solecism  to  speak  of  interna- 
tional law  as  "destroyed"  or  "non-existent,"  be- 
cause it  is  sometimes  violated.  It  can  never  be 
destroyed.  It  will  continue  to  reassert  itself;  and, 
as  public  order  and  state  authority  appear  more 
necessary  after  a  period  of  domestic  anarchy  than 
they  ever  did  before,  international  law,  after  an 
orgy  of  violence  and  atrocity,  appeals  with  new 
strength  to  the  reason  of  mankind  as  something 


58     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

that  possesses  an  inherent  claim  upon  our  re- 
spect and  obedience. 

Although  criminally  violated,  it  is  an  error 
to  suppose  that  international  law  has  been  wholly 
disregarded  in  the  great  European  conflict.  On 
the  contrary,  it  has  been  recognized  and  appealed 
to  as  never  before  in  human  history.  Never  in 
any  previous  war  have  such  efforts  been  put 
forth  by  belligerents  to  justify  their  own  conduct, 
and  to  prove  that  their  enemies  have  openly  dis- 
regarded the  principles  of  justice  as  well  as  the 
merely  technical  rules  of  warfare.  The  volumi- 
nous white,  red,  yellow,  and  other  books  published 
by  the  governments  are  eloquent  tributes  to  the 
authority  of  international  law,  which  they  con- 
stantly accuse  their  enemies  of  violating,  and 
profess  to  appeal  to  as  a  body  of  rules  that  ought 
to  be  obeyed.  In  truth,  the  approval  and  dis- 
approval of  their  acts  by  the  neutral  nations  are 
based  almost  entirely  upon  the  conclusiveness  or 
inconclusiveness  of  the  evidence  that  these  accusa- 
tions are  true,  and  the  weight  of  public  condem- 
nation corresponds  with  the  preponderance  of 
guilt  resulting  from  intentional  disregard  of  the 
principles  of  justice. 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  59 

How  trivial  it  is,  then,  to  speak  of  interna- 
tional law  as  being  of  slight  importance,  and  es- 
pecially to  treat  it  as  if  it  had  no  claims  to  the 
title  of  binding  law  because  it  does  not  have  an 
immediate  external  sanction !  An  ultimate  sanc- 
tion it  unquestionably  has.  If  it  were  generally 
disregarded,  it  would  involve  the  complete  ruin 
of  civilization.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were 
generally  obeyed,  if  all  the  great  powers,  not  to 
speak  of  the  smaller  ones,  earnestly  sought  to 
carry  out  in  all  their  relations  with  one  another 
the  principles  for  which  they  profess  to  stand,  and 
which  they  endeavor  to  enforce  within  their  own 
jurisdictions  and  demand  that  other  governments 
should  observe  in  respect  to  themselves,  it  would 
seem  like  a  different  world. 

Is  it  then  not  idle  to  pretend  that  international 
law  has  no  sanction  when  obedience  or  disobedi- 
ence of  its  precepts  carries  such  far-reaching  con- 
sequences to  mankind?  In  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  world,  as  the  rain  falls  alike  on  the 
just  and  on  the  unjust,  .even  under  municipal  law 
the  victims  of  unprovoked  aggression  often  suf- 
fer while  the  guilty  escape  the  penalty  the  state 
would  impose  upon  them;  but  we  do  not  on  this 


60     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

account  deny  the  existence  of  the  law.  Nor  can 
it  be  said  that  no  penalty  is  attached  to  the  viola- 
tion of  the  law  of  nations.  In  general,  besides 
its  direct  consequence  of  resentment  and  hostility 
on  the  part  of  the  nation  wronged,  it  should  in- 
volve the  general  reprobation  of  mankind.  And, 
in  fact,  the  penalties  for  violations  of  interna- 
tional law  are  far  more  specifically  apportioned 
and  executed  than  we  sometimes  imagine.  The 
perpetration  of  injustice  by  one  state  upon  another 
invariably  deteriorates  its  own  citizenship  and 
destroys  within  the  body  politic  itself  values  far 
more  precious  than  those  obtained  by  an  unjust 
war.  "A  state,"  it  has  been  well  said,  ''can  do 
no  wrong  to  another  which  is  not  equally,  and 
even  more,  a  wrong  to  itself."  Regarded  from 
a  historical  point  of  view,  there  are  few  projects 
of  international  depredation  that  have  not  brought 
terrific  retributions;  and,  although  law-abiding 
states  have  sometimes  been  subjected  to  infam- 
ous encroachments,  it  is  a  fact  supported  by  sta- 
tistics that  many  small  and  inoffensive  states,  like 
Switzerland  and  Holland,  demand  lower  taxes 
and  borrow  money  at  lower  rates  of  interest  than 
the  imperial  powers  that  have  from  time  to  time 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  61 

attempted  to  subjugate  their  neighbors,  thereby 
sowing  dragon's  teeth  of  reprisal  and  revenge 
that  exhaust  populations  and  burden  them  with 
public  debt.  The  cost  of  overgrown  armies  and 
navies  and  the  far  heavier  cost  of  young  life 
offered  as  a  sacrifice  to  national  pride  and  na- 
tional greed — are  not  these  a  penalty  for  dis- 
regarding a  law  of  life  written  in  the  reason  and 
the  conscience  of  man? 

What,  then,  is  law,  if  not  that  principle  of  self- 
regulation  by  which  a  being  realizes  the  true  end 
of  its  existence?  Our  statements  of  it  may  vary 
from  time  to  time,  for  the  perception  of  it  de- 
pends upon  the  development  of  our  intelligence. 
But  it  does  not  depend  upon  our  will.  It  is  in- 
herent in  our  being.  It  is  manifested  through  our 
reason.  It  is  confirmed  through  our  experience. 
There  is  a  law  of  nations  as  well  as  a  law  of  in- 
dividual life,  which  we  have  only  partly  discov- 
ered, because  we  have  not  sought  the  highest 
good  of  all,  but  only  the  highest  good  of  a  limited 
number.  But  nature  deals  in  universals.  So 
long,  therefore,  as  all  nations,  or  even  some  na- 
tions, insist  upon  a  right  of  territorial  expansion 
at  the  expense  of  others;  so  long  as  they  fail  to 


62     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

recognize  that,  irrespective  of  size  and  strength, 
they  are  members  of  a  community  of  jural  equals ; 
so  long  as  they  claim  that  their  will  is  law,  so 
long  war  will  be  the  ratio  ultima,  and  prepara- 
tion for  it  the  highest  wisdom  of  statesmanship. 
If  it  is  impossible  to  place  confidence  in  leagues 
of  peace,  it  is  still  less  possible  to  confide  our 
destinies  to  a  league  to  enforce  peace,  if  it  is  to 
be  composed  of  powers  that  need  themselves  to  be 
placed  under  guardians.  The  only  league  that 
could  be  trusted  effectually  to  enforce  peace  would 
be  one  composed  exclusively  of  states  that  are 
disposed  to  recognize  the  obligations  of  interna- 
tional law,  and  voluntarily  to  pledge  themselves  to 
protect  and  obey  it. 

But,  to  speak  plainly,  peace  is  not  in  itself  a 
human  ideal.  As  long  as  it  leaves  unsolved  the 
problems  of  justice,  it  is  not  even  a  desirable  as- 
piration. It  may  even  be  repugnant  to  the  moral 
sentiments  of  an  enlightened  conscience.  It  is 
to  be  desired  only  when  it  is  the  concomitant  of 
realized  social  good,  for  it  is  in  no  sense  an  end  in 
itself.  Yet  the  word  is  not  to  be  set  aside  as  rep- 
resenting a  mere  negation,  as  if  it  were  simply  the 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  63 

absence  of  strife.  Peace  on  earth  would  mean  the 
liberation  of  human  faculties  for  the  highest  and 
noblest  achievements  of  which  human  nature  is 
capable.  It  would  mean  a  splendid  efflorescence 
of  art,  literature,  science,  philosophy,  and  religion, 
in  short,  culture  in  its  best  sense,  as  the  spon- 
taneous unfolding  of  the  powers  of  personality. 

And  when  we  consider  what  an  absolutist  state 
might  do  to  repress  human  spontaneity,  destroy 
the  sense  of  personality,  and  render  its  own  dog- 
mas definitive,  we  see  what  an  incubus  upon  civi- 
lization it  is  capable  of  becoming.  If  the  tend- 
ency to  monopolize  and  direct  for  its  own  purposes 
all  human  energies  in  channels  of  its  own  devising 
were  unrestrained,  we  should  eventually  have  an 
official  art,  an  official  science,  and  an  official 
literature  that  would  be  like  iron  shackles  to  the 
human  mind. 

These  things,  being  human,  are  essentially  cos- 
mopolitan, and  thrive  best  where  international 
intercourse  is  least  restrained.  If,  as  the  absolut- 
ist theory  of  the  state  assumes,  a  particular  gov- 
ernment did,  in  reality,  embody  the  indwelling 
absolute,  the  source  and  shaper  of  all  intelligent 
existence,  as  Hegel  would  have  it,  would  it  even 


64     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

then  have  the  right  to  dictate  what  language 
should  be  employed,  what  arts  should  be  encour- 
aged, what  forms  they  should  take,  and  what 
purposes  they  should  serve?  What  a  narrow 
view  it  is  to  assume  that  any  merely  national 
culture  is  a  world  culture  or  that  it  has  a  right  to 
impose  itself  upon  recalcitrant  peoples  who  have 
a  culture  of  their  own!  Such  an  assumption  is 
not  only  unphilosophical ;  it  is  unhistorical. 
^'Culture  is  not,  and  never  can  be,  an  inherent 
quality  peculiar  to  a  particular  nation  or  lan- 
guage. It  is  the  heritage  of  the  whole  human 
race,  cherished,  enriched,  and  transmitted  by  one 
generation  to  another,  from  one  corner  of  the 
earth  to  another.  Human  languages  are  the  ves- 
sels in  which  culture  resides.  No  language  has 
been  a  culture-language  from  the  beginning,  and 
none  is  incapable  of  becoming  such  in  the  end." 
Culture,  in  any  true  sense,  cannot  be  made  a  na- 
tional monopoly.  It  is  an  affair  of  the  human 
soul,  and  any  vehicle  of  repression  against  which 
the  soul  is  in  revolt  is  doomed  to  defeat,  or  cul- 
ture will  perish  in  the  struggle. 

Here  speak  with  voices  that  cannot  be  silenced 
and  with  pleadings  that  must  be  heard  the  sup- 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  65 

pressed  nationalities,  whole  peoples  smitten  with 
the  sword,  torn  up  from  their  historic  roots,  and 
made  to  serve  the  narrow  selfish  purposes  of 
dominant  dynasties.  It  is  useless  to  speak  of 
peace  while  these  enormities  exist.  How  can  peo- 
ples who,  through  mere  numerical  superiority 
and  military  power,  have  overwhelmed  subject 
races,  and  by  the  menace  of  the  sword  forbid  the 
use  of  native  languages  and  the  retention  of  his- 
toric memories,  speak  seriously  of  superior  cul- 
ture? It  is  only  by  the  power  of  persistence  un- 
der conditions  of  perfect  liberty  that  the  superior- 
ity of  a  form  of  culture  can  vindicate  itself,  for 
that  is  for  each  nation  the  highest  which  is  best 
suited  to  its  powers  of  achievements;  and  when 
a  dynastic  ruler  by  violence  strips  a  subject  race 
of  its  spiritual  inheritance,  it  reverses  and  de- 
stroys the  process  by  which  true  culture  is  de- 
veloped. There  is  no  people  in  the  world  who 
would  not  resist  it  if  this  procedure  were  prac- 
tised upon  itself. 

A  people,  therefore,  cannot  fit  itself  for  inter- 
national society  or  realize  its  own  normal  de- 
velopment as  a  state  until  it  is  ready  to  recognize 
the  claims  of  personality.     Where  mixed  races 


66     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

compose  the  population,  and  nationality  is  iden- 
tified with  a  dominant  race,  there  can  be  no  true 
national  unity,  because  there  is  no  spirit  of  co- 
operation. On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  shown 
by  the  experience  of  Switzerland  and  the  United 
States  that  different  races  may  coexist  in  the  same 
nation  without  in  the  slightest  degree  destroying 
their  personal  freedom,  and  that  they  may  co- 
operate together  successfully  in  the  organization 
of  liberty.  Many  nations  may  still  be  unripe  for 
this  higher  development  of  nationality,  and  the 
contests  for  race  segregation  and  race  domina- 
tion may  still  continue;  but  the  obstacle  to  har- 
mony does  not  proceed  from  the  essential  nature 
of  the  state.  It  consists  rather  in  the  arrest  of 
political  evolution  at  a  stage  where  true  state- 
hood has  not  yet  been  achieved;  for  a  nation 
organized  merely  for  power,  for  conquest,  for 
world  dominion,  and  not  for  justice,  is  not  yet 
a  state  in  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  but 
an  unsocial  and  anarchical  survival  of  primi- 
tive despotism. 

The  complete  realization  of  international 
ideals  must,  therefore,  wait  on  further  political 
evolution.     But  they  are  not  wholly  dependent 


INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS  67 

on  purely  speculative  thought.  They  are  closely 
intertwined  with  practical  experience.  They 
gain  new  strength  from  every  new  disillusion- 
ment regarding  the  value  and  expediency  of 
schemes  of  conquest  and  the  effort  to  secure  so- 
cial prosperity  by  military  force.  We  have, 
therefore,  to  take  into  account  existing  realities. 
No  more  than  the  old  will  the  new  Europe  be 
a  mere  structure  of  thought.  It  is  materially 
shaping  itself  now  before  our  eyes.  It  is  being 
forged  and  fashioned  amid  the  smoke  and  flame 
and  torture  of  battle.  It  is  to  be  determined  not 
only  by  what  men  love  and  desire,  but  also  by 
what  they  hate  and  by  what  they  recoil  from  in 
horror.  Its  battle-cry  is:  "Never  again! 
Never  again! "  Thrones  may  be  shaken  or  they 
may  endure;  but  out  of  the  anguish,  the  disil- 
lusionment, and  the  fading  of  iridescent  dreams 
the  new  Europe  will  come  forth  chastened,  re- 
constituted, and  redeemed. 


CHAPTER  III 
ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM 

IN"  the  discussion  of  international  questions  it 
is  a  common  oversight  to  lay  the  principal 
stress  on  political  organization,  to  the  neglect  of 
economic  facts  and  aspirations.  It  is  evident 
that  if  all  nations  were  living  under  a  truly  con- 
stitutional regime  and  were  disposed  to  apply  the 
principles  of  constitutional  states  in  their  deal- 
ings with  one  another,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to 
establish  a  world  organization  with  a  settled  code 
of  law,  a  court  of  arbitral  justice,  and  perhaps  a 
council  of  conciliation  to  propose  methods  of  ad- 
justing controversies  arising  from  a  conflict  of 
national  policies.  But  such  an  organization 
would  provide  only  a  set  of  institutions.  It  would 
not  reach  the  national  motives  that  move  the 
world  to  action. 

Among  the  causes  of  conflict  the  most  diffi- 
cult to  control  are  the  economic  motives ;  for  it  is 

68 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  69 

these  that  are  at  present  the  most  influential  in 
determining  the  ambitions  of  nations,  which  are 
not  merely  ''bodies  politic,"  but  economic  cor- 
porations, seeking  to  acquire  and  possess  the 
resources  of  the  world.  Regarded  from  this 
point  of  view,  the  external  aim  of  national  exist- 
ence is  efficiency  rather  than  justice.  Its  pur- 
pose is  not  alone  the  protection  of  rights,  but 
the  augmentation  of  power.  As  long  as  the  em- 
ployment of  military  force  as  an  auxiliary  of  in- 
dustry and  trade  seems  to  the  great  powers  more 
advantageous  than  peaceable  cooperation  in  the 
utilization  of  the  earth's  resources,  war  will  ap- 
pear to  be  a  natural,  and  to  some  a  justifiable, 
method  of  national  development. 

Modern  imperialism  is,  in  fact,  far  more  ac- 
tuated by  economic  than  by  political  motives. 
Politically,  imperialism  is  merely  a  dynastic  in- 
terest; but  economically,  it  is  made  to  appear 
that  territorial  expansion  and  extended  domina- 
tion are  in  the  people's  interest.  In  this  repre- 
sentation there  are,  however,  two  abuses  of  the 
people's  confidence :  for,  while  a  few  special  inter- 
ests may  profit  by  an  imperial  policy,  the  aver- 
age person  is  not  rendered  richer  or  happier  by 


A 


70     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

imperial  triumphs;  and,  if  he  were,  it  would  still 
be  a  criminal  act  to  seduce  a  people  into  partner- 
ship in  a  policy  of  plunder  on  the  ground  that 
advantages  may  be  obtained  for  them  through 
the  power  of  the  state  which  could  not  be  pro- 
cured by  private  means.  When  a  government 
embarks  upon  a  policy  of  imperial  aggression, 
it  virtually  says  to  the  nation,  "Provide  us  with 
the  necessary  power,  and  we  shall  win  for  you  in- 
creased advantages  in  which  you  will  all  share.'' 
A  people  thus  deluded  are  the  victims  not  only 
of  deception,  but  of  corruption.  By  becoming 
shareholders  in  a  joint-stock  operation,  the  ob- 
ject of  which  is  illicit  gain,  they  furnish  the  cap- 
ital for  a  predatory  enterprise,  only  to  discover  in 
the  end  that  they  do  not  share  in  its  fruits  even 
when  these  are  obtained  by  conquests  and  annexa- 
tions. On  the  contrary,  they  find  themselves 
burdened  with  public  debt,  impoverished  by  the 
neglect  of  their  business,  and  saddened  by  the 
loss  of  their  sons  killed  or  maimed  in  battle.  It 
may  well  be  doubted  if,  when  the  balance  is 
struck,  the  average  person  in  any  nation,  though 
victorious  in  war,  has  on  the  whole  been  to  any 
important  extent  enriched  by  imperial  aggres- 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  71 

sion.  New  territory  may  have  been  obtained,  new 
accessions  may  have  been  made  to  the  mass  of 
the  population,  wider  political  control  may  have 
been  acquired,  but  rarely,  if  ever,  has  the  sum 
of  happiness  been  thus  increased. 

To  most  civilized  peoples  the  thought  of  ag- 
gressive war  for  purposes  of  gain,  involving  as 
it  necessarily  does  every  variety  of  crime, — rob- 
bery, murder,  outrage,  and  sacrilege, — is  revolt- 
ing to  the  conscience  and  repellent  to  intelligence ; 
but,  in  reality,  imperial  aspirations  are  never  so 
repulsively  presented  to  the  mind.  They  are  in- 
variably disguised  for  the  great  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple under  a  mask  of  virtuous  pretenses.  Alleged 
defense  against  intended  invasion,  the  undoing 
of  historic  wrongs,  the  attainment  of  "natural 
boundaries,"  the  unification  of  divided  peoples, 
the  restoration  of  suppressed  nationalities,  the  ex- 
tension of  the  benefits  of  a  higher  culture  to 
lower  races — all  these  are  the  reasons  set  forth 
in  public  proclamations  and  diplomatic  apologies 
for  schemes  of  aggression,  while  the  advantages 
to  be  gained  are  represented  as  incidental  con- 
comitants of  these  lofty  purposes. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  unreasonable  to  deny 


72     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

that  long-obstructed  national  aspirations  and  a 
desire  for  equality  of  privilege  with  other  nations 
may  be  perfectly  legitimate,  as  for  example,  the 
unification  of  Germany  and  of  Italy,  or  a  deter- 
mination to  put  an  end  to  exclusion  from  markets 
and  waterways  over  which  unfair  monopolies 
have  been  established.  In  cases  where  whole 
peoples  have  by  force  been  rendered  economically 
dependent  there  may  be,  no  doubt,  just  grounds 
for  demanding  changes ;  but  in  the  main  these  are 
fit  subjects  for  negotiation  and  transaction,  in 
accordance  with  legitimate  business  methods, 
rather  than  for  the  exercise  of  military  force.  In 
the  past,  resort  to  violence  for  the  attainment  of 
national  ends  has  not  only  been  customary,  but 
it  has  seemed  to  follow  as  a  logical  corollary  from 
the  absolutist  theory  of  the  state.  If  that  theory 
is  still  to  be  maintained,  then  there  is  no  escape 
from  the  perfect  legitimacy  of  wholesale  con- 
quest, limited  only  by  the  power  of  a  state  to 
attain  its  ends  by  force.  Every  existing  empire 
in  the  world  has,  in  fact,  been  created  by  mili- 
tary power.  To  those  who  accept  the  absolutist 
theory  of  the  state  there  is  nothing  reprehensible 
in  the  spirit  of  conquest  and  imperial  domination. 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  73 

Why  should  any  nation  holding  this  theory  re- 
frain from  extending  its  power  as  far  as  possi- 
ble? It  is,  in  truth,  certain  that  it  will  not  re- 
frain; and  it  follows  with  logical  necessity  that 
as  long  as  this  theory  is  held  the  conflict  of  nations 
will  continue. 

The  whole  future  of  civilization  turns  upon 
the  decision  whether  the  state  is  to  be  henceforth 
a  creation  of  force  or  a  creation  of  law.  If  it  is 
to  be  considered  merely  a  creation  of  force,  then 
preparation  for  war  is  the  only  wisdom;  for  only 
the  strong  state  can  survive,  and  it  must  be  at  all 
times  ready  to  fight  for  its  existence.  But  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  state  is  rightly  to  be  con- 
ceived as  a  creation  of  law,  then  all  states  ac- 
cepting this  theory  are  menaced  by  the  existence 
of  strong  embodiments  of  power  which  refuse 
to  be  governed  by  the  rules  of  law.  As  long  as 
they  exist,  as  long  as  they  arm  themselves  for  ag- 
gression, as  long  as  they  devise  and  entertain 
schemes  of  conquest,  so  long  the  truly  constitu- 
tional states  must  be  prepared  to  defend  them- 
selves and  even  to  defend  one  another. 

Considered  by  itself,  merely  dynastic  impe- 
rialism is  not  at  present  a  menace  to  the  world's 


74     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

peace.  There  is  probably  no  nation  so  devoted  to 
a  dynasty  and  to  the  dynastic  conception  of  gov- 
ernment as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  its  neighbors 
for  purely  dynastic  reasons.  Mankind  has 
passed  that  point.  But  territorial  expansion,  the 
extension  of  political  control  for  economic  rea- 
sons, the  lust  for  markets,  the  quest  for  resources, 
the  command  of  great  waterways,  supremacy  on 
the  sea — these  are  the  driving  and  compelling 
forces  that  make  imperialism  a  terror  in  the 
world.  In  the  hands  of  an  efficient,  irresponsible, 
and  remorseless  great  power,  these  ambitions 
would  render  this  planet  a  place  of  unending  tor- 
ture to  every  law-respecting  people. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  in  the  case  of  the 
states  of  Europe  which  were  at  one  time  engaged 
in  a  struggle  for  empire,  but  have  since  abandoned 
it,  there  has  been  an  impressive  diminution  in  the 
proportion  of  time  during  which  they  have  been 
occupied  with  war.  Denmark,  for  example,  dur- 
ing the  period  of  its  struggle  for  supremacy  in 
the  Baltic,  in  the  sixteenth  century  devoted  32.5 
years,  and  in  the  seventeenth  century  30.5  years, 
to  war;  but  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  cen- 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  75 

turies,  when  the  kingdom  had  ceased  to  enter- 
tain imperial  ambitions,  the  average  time  de- 
voted to  war,  in  which  it  was  involved  chiefly 
through  its  alliances,  was  only  about  13  per  cent, 
of  the  whole  period.  In  the  sixteenth  and  seven-, 
teenth  centuries,  Sweden,  while  aiming  to  be  the 
seat  of  empire  in  the  North  by  dominating  Poland, 
North  Germany,  and  Denmark,  was  engaged  in 
war  more  than  50  per  cent,  of  the  time;  but  in 
the  nineteenth  century  after  the  Swedish  impe- 
rial ambitions  had  become  extinct,  although  forced 
into  war  in  self-defense  during  the  Napoleonic 
period,  warlike  activities  occupied  only  6.5  per 
cent,  of  the  time,  and  since  1815  the  kingdom  has 
been  at  peace.  Holland,  also,  during  the  period 
of  colonial  expansion  was  involved  in  war  during 
62  per  cent,  of  the  time,  but  in  the  last  half  cen- 
tury has  been  exempt  from  warfare.  Spain,  in 
the  full  tide  of  colonial  expansion,  was  engaged 
in  war  during  82  per  cent,  of  the  time;  but  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Napoleonic  period,  the  wars  of  Spain,  until  the 
short  conflict  with  the  United  States  over  Cuba, 
were  mere  domestic  insurrections  against  abso- 
lutism. 


76     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  great  powers,  we  find 
that  they  have  been  almost  constantly  engaged 
in  war  or  preparation  for  it  and  that  it  has  grown 
almost  entirely  out  of  their  imperial  aspirations. 
Austria,  in  the  period  of  imperial  consolidation 
from  1500  to  1650,  was  engaged  in  war  75.5  per 
cent,  of  the  entire  time.  After  the  Peace  of  West- 
phalia there  was  a  marked  diminution  of  warlike 
activities.  During  the  eighteenth  century  the 
proportion  fell  to  48  per  cent.,  and  in  the  nine- 
teenth to  13.5  per  cent.  During  the  whole  period 
from  1100  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  France  has  been  engaged  in  war 
about  one  half  the  time,  and  during  the  last  cen- 
tury 35  per  cent,  of  the  time.  During  four  cen- 
turies Russia  has  been  60  per  cent,  of  the  time 
occupied  with  war.  Since  1500,  England  has 
been  involved  nearly  52  per  cent,  of  the  time  in 
foreign  wars. 

Many  of  the  wars  included  in  these  estimates 
were,  it  is  true,  of  an  unimportant  character,  and 
certainly  no  one  of  them,  not  even  the  Napoleonic 
wars,  could  compare  in  magnitude  with  the  great 
European  conflict  now  raging;  but  the  greater 
part  of  them  were,  on  one  side  or  the  other,  im- 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  77 

perial  wars,  and  proceeded  upon  the  principle 
that  the  right  of  possession  belongs  to  the  power 
that  can  take  and  hold.  There  may  have  been 
differences  in  the  treatment  of  the  vanquished 
after  the  struggle  was  ended,  and  in  the  charac- 
ter of  the  civilization  imposed  by  the  conqueror; 
but  in  the  past  no  great  power  has  doubted  that 
it  had  a  perfect  right  to  subjugate  a  weaker  race 
or  dismember  a  defenseless  state  whenever  it  was 
to  its  material  advantage  to  do  so,  and  there  is  no 
great  power  that  has  not  acted  in  this  way. 

Down  to  the  invasion  of  Belgium  in  1914,  the 
most  odious  crime  ever  committed  against  a  civi- 
lized people  was,  no  doubt,  the  first  partition  of 
Poland;  yet  at  the  time  not  a  voice  was  raised 
against  it.  Louis  XV  was  "infinitely  displeased," 
but  did  not  even  reply  to  the  King  of  Poland's 
appeal  for  help.  George  III  coolly  answered  that 
''justice  ought  to  be  the  invariable  rule  of  sover- 
eigns"; but  concluded,  "I  fear,  however,  misfor- 
tunes have  reached  the  point  where  redress  can 
be  had  from  the  hand  of  the  Almighty  alone." 
Catherine  II  thought  justice  satisfied  when  "every 
one  takes  something."  Frederick  II  wrote  to  his 
brother,  "The  partition  will  unite  the  three  re- 


78     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

ligions,  Greek,  Catholic,  and  Calvinist;  for  we 
would  take  our  communion  from  the  same  conse- 
crated body,  which  is  Poland.''  Only  Maria 
Theresa  felt  a  twinge  of  conscience.  She  took, 
but  she  felt  the  shame  of  it.     She  wrote: 

We  have  by  our  moderation  and  fideHty  to  our  engage- 
ments acquired  the  confidence,  I  may  venture  to  say  the 
admiration,  of  Europe.  .  .  .  One  year  has  lost  it  all.  I 
confess,  it  is  difficult  to  endure  it,  and  that  nothing  in  the 
world  has  cost  me  more  than  the  loss  of  our  good  name. 

It  is  a  strange  phenomenon  that  in  matters 
where  the  unsophisticated  human  conscience  so 
promptly  pronounces  judgment  and  spontane- 
ously condemns,  the  solid  mass  of  moral  convic- 
tion should  count  for  nothing  in  affairs  of  state. 
Against  it  a  purely  national  prejudice  has  almost 
never  failed  to  prevail.  At  the  present  moment 
there  is  a  strong  sympathy  expressed  for  the  mis- 
fortunes of  small  states;  and  yet  how  little  the 
great  powers  have  done  to  secure  the  safety  and 
the  rights  of  the  lesser  nations.  It  may  seem  un- 
gracious, in  the  midst  of  a  bitter  struggle,  to 
open  the  books  of  the  past  and  recall  to  the  con- 
testants the  record  they  have  helped  to  make. 
But  how  shall  we  ever  put  an  end  to  economic 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  79 

imperialism  if  we  do  not  lay  bare  its  vices  and  if 
we  do  not  condemn  it  in  all  who  have  practised 
it?  So  long  as  it  remains  unchallenged,  it  will 
go  on.  But  the  crime  of  letting  it  go  on  is  not 
confined  to  the  injury  inflicted  upon  the  quarry 
in  the  game  of  empire,  the  small  state  or  the  weak 
people.  The  most  fatal  injury  is  to  the  imperial 
peoples,  who  suffer  themselves  to  be  drawn  into 
predatory  aggression  and  made  particeps  criminis 
by  the  appeal  to  their  racial  instincts,  their  loyalty 
to  their  governments,  their  passion  for  supremacy, 
or  the  baser  incentive  of  mere  vulgar  greed.  If 
there  is  to  be  a  better  spirit  in  the  new  Europe, 
there  will  be  required  much  penitence  for  the  past 
and  many  high  resolves  for  the  future.  But  there 
are  grounds  for  believing  that  a  turning-point  in 
history  has  now  been  reached.  It  has  required 
the  awful  cataclysm  that  is  now  agitating  Europe 
to  open  the  eyes  of  civilized  peoples  to  the  truth 
that  the  state,  with  all  its  machinery  of  destruction, 
cannot  longer  be  set  above  the  moral  law.  It 
has  at  the  same  time  raised  the  question  in  every 
thoughtful  mind.  What  is  the  state,  and  whence 
comes  its  authority  that  for  its  own  increase  of 
power  it  may  so  ruthlessly  crush  the  lives  of  men 


80     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

beneath  its  chariot  wheel,  hurling  whole  peoples 
against  each  other,  armed  with  every  ingenious 
device  for  wholesale  murder,  and  strewing  the 
earth  with  death  and  mutilation?  There  is  hope 
in  the  fact  that  nations  which  in  the  past  have 
themselves  joined  in  the  quest  for  empire  and 
have  taken  part  in  the  subjugation  of  helpless 
peoples  now  assert  that  they  are  fighting  the 
battle  of  democracy  and  sacrificing  their  own  lives 
for  the  safety  of  small  and  defenseless  states. 
After  that  how  can  they  ever  again  place  empire 
above  moral  obligation,  and  material  gain  above 
the  principles  they  proclaim? 

It  was,  beyond  dispute,  economic  imperialism 
that  caused  the  present  war  and  plunged  all  Eu- 
rope into  it.  No  one  can  fail  to  see  the  opposi- 
tion of  interests  that  led  up  to  it.  They  were 
real,  they  were  obvious;  but  it  was  an  anachron- 
ism to  fight  about  them.  They  were  primarily 
business  interests — ^markets,  resources,  trade 
routes.  These  were  the  issues.  To  settle  them 
advantagously  the  sword  was  thrown  into  the 
scale,  great  armies  were  mustered  and  despatched 
upon  their  errand  of  hewing  their  way  to  the  heart 
of  opposing  nations.     Has  it  been  a  good  way 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  81 

to  transact  business  ?  It  was  easy  to  begin  it,  but 
it  is  difficult  to  end  it.  It  can  never  be  ended  by 
mere  fighting.  The  lesson  of  it  must  be  learned 
and  accepted  by  all;  and,  whoever  wins  on  the 
battle-field,  no  real  victory  can  be  attained  that 
does  not  result  in  the  triumph  of  principles  of 
universal  justice,  and  the  renunciation  of  material 
advantages  as  mere  spoils  of  war.  Unless  the 
victory  resulting  from  this  war  is  a  triumph  for 
humanity,  whoever  the  victor  may  be  at  the  mak- 
ing of  a  treaty,  it  will  not  be  a  peace,  but  the  seed 
of  future  conflicts.  The  real  battle-field  is  in 
the  souls  of  the  nations ;  and  nations  as  well  as  in- 
dividual men  must  learn  that  "he  who  conquer- 
eth  his  own  spirit  is  greater  than  he  who  taketh 
a  city." 

Herein,  then,  lies  the  foreshadowing  of  a  new 
Europe,  that,  hereafter,  the  stronger  may  not 
profit  by  his  superior  strength.  It  sounds,  in- 
deed, like  a  new  doctrine,  and  it  will  be  hard  to 
live  by,  but  it  has  its  apostolate.  It  is  explicitly 
announced  as  a  creed.  Whatever  sympathy  the 
Entente  Allies  have  received  in  America  has  been 
given  to  them  because  they  were  the  first  to  an- 


82     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

nounce  it,  and  because  it  is  believed  that  they  are 
sincere  in  proclaiming  that  law  is  to  be  respected 
and  the  right  of  the  stronger  is  to  be  denied. 
They  have  opened  a  great  issue,  and  they  will  be 
held  to  it.  The  small  states,  the  weak  peoples, 
the  submerged  races,  they  af&rm,  must  henceforth 
receive  from  the  powerful  just  consideration. 
The  state  is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  an  entity 
existing  only  for  its  own  augmentation  of  power, 
above  the  law,  defiant  of  humanity,  and  respon- 
sible to  no  one  for  its  action.  There  is  to  be  a 
society  of  states  in  a  true  sense,  in  which  interna- 
tional law  is  to  be  respected.  In  brief,  there  is  to 
be  an  end  of  economic  imperialism.  It  is  to  be 
a  different  world. 

For  the  historian,  at  least,  it  is  difficult  to  ac- 
cept these  high  resolutions  as  certain  to  endure. 
History  has  never  been  an  advance  in  a  direct 
line  toward  the  fulfilment  of  great  ideals.  There 
are  frequently  reactionary  movements,  but  they 
are  seldom  complete.  Human  nature  does  not 
change  radically,  but  in  great  crises  men  see  a 
new  light;  and,  having  seen  it,  it  is  never  quite 
so  dark  as  it  was  before. 

At  all  events,  a  new  standard  has  been  raised. 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  83 

Let  us,  therefore,  rally  to  it.  Let  us  make  it  easy 
to  perform  acts  of  penitence  and  contrition.  Let 
all  who  believe  in  the  constitutional  state,  who 
base  it  upon  the  rights  of  the  person,  who  would 
subject  it  as  far  as  possible  to  moral  law,  and  who 
wish  to  banish  from  the  earth  the  shadow  of  the 
sword,  unite  in  accepting  this  standard.  At  least 
one  step  of  progress  has  been  made  since  the  con- 
ferences at  The  Hague.  Then  no  one  dared  to 
raise  the  deeper  issues.  No  one  in  those  conclaves 
ventured  to  question  the  prerogatives  of  govern- 
ment. No  one  felt  that  the  moment  had  arrived 
to  discuss  the  real  causes  of  war  or  to  rebuke  the 
greed  of  the  great  powers.  There  was  of  neces- 
sity an  atmosphere  of  courtesy,  but  it  was  breathed 
through  a  veil  of  mutual  suspicion.  The  very 
fact  that  there  were  subjects  that  could  not  be 
frankly  considered  rendered  impossible  perfect 
confidence.  Again  and  again  it  was  whispered, 
'We  must  not  isolate  this  or  that  power'';  and, 
therefore,  no  action  could  be  taken  to  which  all 
the  powers, — which  knew  that  they  were  pitted 
against  one  another, — could  not  agree.  The 
small  states  were  all  in  leading-strings,  each  one 
thinking  of  its  own  exposure  and,  in  some  in- 


84     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

stances,  of  its  own  designs.  It  is  well  that  we 
have  reached  a  point  where  the  truth  may  be  told 
and  where  the  real  causes  of  conflict  may  be 
openly  discussed. 

There  can  be  among  really  constitutional  states 
no  discrimination  based  on  mere  forms  of  govern- 
ment. These  grow  out  of  the  exigencies  of  each 
nation;  and  by  its  own  principles  each  constitu- 
tional state  is  prohibited  from  dictating  its 
form  of  government  to  any  other.  Monarchy, 
oligarchy,  or  democracy,  all  and  equally  may  en- 
ter into  the  family  of  nations  as  long  as  they  ac- 
cept and  respect  the  principles  of  law.  But  eco- 
nomic imperialism  is  a  spirit  and  not  a  form. 
Until  that  is  renounced  there  can  be  no  society  of 
states,  because  it  is  anti-social,  predatory,  and 
based  on  arbitrary  force.  So  long  as  nations, 
whatever  their  form  of  government,  resort  to  mili- 
tary power  in  order  to  subordinate  other  nations, 
and  forcibly  extort  from  them  economic  advan- 
tages, so  long  civilization  will  find  itself  face  to 
face  with  a  dangerous  enemy. 

If  the  Entente  Allies  are  sincere  in  this  war, 
they  are  prepared  to  make  an  end  of  forceful 
exploitation  and  to  enter  into  solemn  engagements 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  85 

to  keep  the  faith.  They  have  appealed  to  the  con- 
science of  mankind.  They  have  defined  their 
own  conceptions  of  right  and  wrong.  They  have 
professed  to  be  ready  to  die  for  them.  They  have 
insisted  upon  the  sanctity  of  treaty  obligations. 
They  have  proclaimed  the  rights  of  defenseless 
peoples.  They  have  asserted  that  humanity  and 
national  morality  are  to  be  preferred  to  empire. 
In  this  they  have  risen  to  a  great,  height,  from 
which  it  would  be  humiliating  ever  to  descend. 
To  all  who  believe  in  their  sincerity  they  have 
spoken  with  a  divinely  prophetic  voice;  and  if 
they  are  true  to  their  professions,  they  will  create 
a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

What  then  is  the  attitude  of  the  Central  Pow- 
ers, Germany  and  Austria,  toward  this  standard  ? 
Are  they  also  ready  to  accept  it? 

If  the  German  Empire  has  an  authorized  cham- 
pion and  apologist,  entitled  by  position  and  at- 
tainments to  be  heard  and  credited,  it  is  the 
former  imperial  chancellor.  Prince  von  Biilow. 
In  the  first  sentence  of  his  book  on  ^'Imperial 
Germany,"  published  just  before  the  war  began, 
he  says:     *' Germany  is  the  youngest  of  the  Great 


86     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Powers  of  Europe;  an  uninvited  and  unwelcome 
intruder  when  it  demanded  its  share  in  the  treas- 
ures of  the  world."  The  reason  is  frankly 
stated.  "This  union  of  the  states  of  the  Mid~Eu- 
ropean  continent,"  he  says,  "so  long  prevented, 
so  often  feared,  and  at  last  accomplished  by  the 
force  of  German  arms  and  incomparable  states- 
manship, seemed  to  imply  something  of  a  threat, 
or  at  any  rate  a  disturbing  factor." 

It  may  well  be  doubted  if,  at  the  time  of  the 
establishment  of  the  German  Empire,  it  was  re- 
garded by  the  world  at  large  as  a  "disturbing 
factor,"  much  less  as  a  "threat."  German  unity 
having  been  attained,  Bismarck's  avowed  policy 
was  to  guard  it  from  danger  from  any  possible 
coalition  of  adverse  powers.  As  long  as  that 
regime  lasted,  no  disturbance  of  the  peace  was 
looked  for  from  Germany.  Prince  von  Biilow 
himself  quotes  Bismarck  as  saying:  "In  Serbia 
I  am  an  Austrian,  in  Bulgaria  I  am  a  Russian, 
in  Egypt  I  am  English."  At  the  Congress  of 
Berlin,  in  1878,  all  Europe  except  Russia  was 
willing  to  accept  the  great  chancellor  at  his  own 
valuation  as  an  "honest  broker"  interested  chiefly 
in  the  peace  of  Europe;  and  as  regards  Russia, 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  87 

that  was  in  Bismarck's  mind  ''the  wild  elephant" 
that  "was  to  walk  between  the  two  tame  ele- 
phants, Germany  and  Austria" ! 

But  Prince  von  Billow's  own  interpretation  of 
the  meaning  of  German  unity  is,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, somewhat  disquieting.  The  voluntary 
and  spontaneous  movement  of  the  German  people, 
he  affirms,  could  never  have  created  the  empire. 
It  was  only  through  a  struggle  with  the  rest  of 
Europe,  he  explains,  that  the  Germanic  spirit 
could  be  evoked.  ''The  opposition  in  Germany 
itself  could  hardly  be  overcome,"  he  continues, 
"except  by  such  a  struggle.  By  this  means  na- 
tional policy  was  interwoven  with  international 
policy;  with  incomparable  audacity  and  construc- 
tive statesmanship,  in  consummating  the  work  of 
uniting  Germany,  Bismarck  left  out  of  play  the 
political  capabilities  of  the  Germans,  in  which 
the^  have  never  excelled,  while  he  called  into  ac- 
tion their  fighting  powers,  which  have  always 
been  their  strongest  point." 

These  are  illuminating  words  by  the  former 
chancellor  of  the  empire,  uttered  in  a  spirit  of 
historic  truth ;  and  it  is  in  the  same  spirit  that  they 
are  here  cited.     The  world  would  have  no  fear 


88     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

of  the  German  people,  although  unified  and 
strong,  if  their  old-time  qualities  were  in  control ; 
but,  almost  against  its  will,  it  seems,  Germany 
became  an  imperial  power  and  entered  interna- 
tional politics,  for  which  Prussian  domination 
opened  the  way,  and  centralized  military  as- 
cendancy furnished  the  means  of  action.  Prince 
von  Billow  does  not  permit  the  German  people 
themselves  or  their  neighbors  to  forget  that  it  was 
not  the  political  capabilities  of  the  constituent 
states,  but  Prussian  military  prowess  alone  that 
created  and  can  further  extend  the  empire. 

''The  German  Empire  of  medieval  times,"  the 
former  chancellor  writes,  ''was  not  founded  by  the 
voluntary  union  of  the  tribes,  but  by  the  victory 
of  one  single  tribe  over  the  others,  who  for  a  long 
time  unwillingly  bore  the  rule  of  the  stronger." 
And,  in  order  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  indebted- 
ness of  the  German  people  to  Prussia,  but  rather 
to  show  them  their  complete  dependence  upon  its 
force  of  arms,  he  continues:  "As  the  old  Em- 
pire was  founded  by  a  superior  tribe,  so  the  new 
was  founded  by  the  strongest  of  the  individual 
states.  ...  In  a  modern  form,  but  in  the  old 
way,  the  German  nation  has,  after  a  thousand 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  89 

years,  once  again,  and  more  perfectly,  completed 
the  work  which  it  accomplished  in  early  times, 
and  for  whose  destruction  it  alone  was  to 
blame." 

It  is  precisely  this  return  to  the  past,  this 
frank  revival  of  the  methods  in  use  a  thousand 
years  ago,  this  acceptance  of  a  theory  of  the  state 
which  civilization  has  everywhere  rejected,  and 
this  frank  emphasis  upon  the  intrinsic  superior- 
ity of  "fighting  powers,"  that  have  made  Europe 
afraid  of  Germany,  and  created  a  distrust  of  the 
use  intended  to  be  made  of  its  tremendous  ener- 
gies. 

And  this  distrust  is  not  removed  by  the  picture 
which  Prince  von  Biilow  paints  of  the  intellectual 
state  of  Germany.  "German  intellect,"  he  says, 
"had  already  reached  its  zenith  without  the  help 
of  Prussia.  The  princes  of  the  West  were  the 
patrons  of  German  culture;  the  Hohenzollerns 
were  the  political  teachers  and  taskmasters." 
There  is  as  yet,  he  affirms,  no  fusion  between  the 
Prussian  and  the  German  spirit.  Representa- 
tives of  German  intellectual  life,  he  assures  us, 
sometimes  regard  the  Prussian  state  as  a  "hostile 
power,"  and  the  Prussian  at  times  considers  the 


90     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

free  development  of  the  German  intellect  as  a  "de- 
structive force."  "Again  and  again,"  he  declares, 
"in  Parliament  and  in  the  press  accusations  are 
levelled  against  Prussia  in  the  name  of  freedom, 
and  against  the  undaunted  German  intellect  in 
the  name  of  order."  Between  them,  he  assures 
us,  there  is  as  yet  no  real  reconciliation. 

It  does  not  admit  of  doubt  that,  if  Germany 
were  to-day  in  the  mood  it  was  when  the  German 
universities  and  cultivated  classes  voiced  their 
sentiments  in  1848,  there  would  be  a  vigorous 
movement  for  internationalism.  Instead  of  this, 
on  its  cloistered  side,  the  German  nation  conceives 
of  itself  as  a  universal  spirit  of  righteousness — 
humanity  inspired  by  divinity — working  for  in- 
carnation in  mankind  through  its  superior  forms 
of  culture.  In  other  countries,  it  is  assumed,  in- 
dividual men  are  seeking  only  their  own  private 
happiness.  They  have  no  sense  of  universality 
or  principle  of  organization.  The  German  state 
cares  for  all  its  own.  It  alone,  therefore,  has  the 
secret  of  ultimate  victory.  It  alone  can  save  the 
world  from  degeneration  and  decay.  For  this 
overwhelming  reason  it  ought  to  conquer,  domi- 
nate, and  reconstruct  the  world! 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  91 

Dies  ist  unserf  so  lass  uns  sagen  und  so  es  behaupten. 

Considered  by  itself,  this  Weltanschauung 
would  be  entirely  harmless,  a  form  of  innocuous 
spiritual  pride;  but,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
Prussian  military  organization,  to  which  it  looks 
as  a  means  of  action,  it  has  become  portentous. 
Like  the  faith  of  Islam,  with  which  Pan-German- 
ism unconsciously  compares  itself,  it  has  kindled 
a  fire  of  fanaticism  that  does  not  shrink  from 
extremes;  and  thus,  to  the  pride  of  culture,  is 
added  the  zeal  of  religion: 

Wir  sind  des  Hammergottes  Geschlecht 
Und  wollen  sein  Weltreich  erobern. 

This  spirit  of  Pan-Germanism  reaches  its  full 
flower  in  the  ''Alldeutscher  Verband/'  whose  pub- 
lications, widely  scattered  in  cheap  popular  edi- 
tions, have  done  infinite  damage  to  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  empire.  Among  the  publications  of 
this  kind  the  most  elaborate  is  the  book  entitled 
"Gross-Deutschland,"  published  at  Leipsic,  in 
liPll,  by  Otto  Richard  Tannenberg. 

Here  is  recited  and  interpreted  ethnologically, 


92     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

statistically,  chartographically,  and  prophetically 
the  German  dream  of  Weltpolitik.  With  erudi- 
tion that  has  involved  years  of  research,  and  with 
a  definiteness  and  perspicuity  that  leave  nothing 
unexplained,  even  down  to  the  definitive  treaties 
of  peace  after  the  Great  War  shall  have  accom- 
plished its  purposes,  we  have  in  this  elaborate 
work  a  complete  exposition  of  economic  imperial- 
ism as  contemplated  by  the  Pan-Germanists — an 
exposition  sown  broadcast  among  the  people. 

There  is  here  no  question  of  diffusing  German 
culture  for  the  benefit  of  other  nations,  and  no 
attempt  to  prove  the  moral  value  of  superior  or- 
ganization; there  is  nothing,  in  fact,  but  ^'the 
promise  of  booty,  the  prospect  of  profit,  the  vision 
of  panting  prey  waiting  to  be  transfixed,''  a  world 
empire,  produced  by  the  vivisection  of  civilized 
nations  under  the  edge  of  the  sword. 

This  urgent  exhortation  to  prompt  military  ag- 
gression, with  incredible  frankness,  makes  no  pre- 
tense of  anything  forced  upon  Germany,  but  de- 
clares it  to  be  both  expedient  and  practicable  to 
acquire  new  territory,  expel  its  occupants,  and 
enjoy  its  resources,  without  the  slightest  recogni- 
tion of  any  rights  or  any  law,     Being  strong, 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  93 

numerous,  and  well  prepared,  it  insists  that  the 
time  has  come  for  Germans  to  strike  for  world 
dominion.  "The  period  of  preparation,"  Tan- 
nenberg  declares,  "has  lasted  a  long  time  (from 
1871  to  1911) — forty  years  of  toil  on  land  and 
sea,  the  end  constantly  in  view.  The  need  now 
is  to  begin  the  battle,  to  vanquish,  and  to  con- 
quer; to  gain  new  territories — ^lands  for  colon- 
ization for  the  German  peasants,  fathers  of  fu- 
ture warriors,  and  for  the  future  conquests.  .  .  . 
Teace'  is  a  detestable  word;  peace  between  Ger- 
mans and  Slavs  is  like  a  treaty  made  on  paper, 
between  water  and  fire.  .  .  .  Since  we  have  the 
force,  we  have  not  to  seek  reasons, — not  more 
than  the  English  in  taking  South  Africa." 

Once  brought  within  the  fold  of  the  Greater 
Germany,  there  would  be  in  Europe,  aside  from 
the  Balkans,  eighty-seven  millions,  contributed  by 
Holland,  Belgium,  Switzerland,  Austria,  and  the 
Baltic  provinces  of  Russia,  originally  of  German 
stock.  That  some  of  these  populations  have 
ceased  to  speak  German  does  not  signify;  it  is 
a  matter  of  ethnic  unity,  the  restoration  of  long- 
lost  brothers.  That  other  races  occupy  these  ter- 
ritories also,  sometimes  exceeding  in  numbers  the 


94    THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

German  occupants,  does  not  render  this  less  neces- 
sary. "If  all  the  German  tribes  existed  to-day," 
writes  Tannenberg,  "and  had  the  force  of  the 
Low  Saxons,  there  would  be  neither  Latins  nor 
Slavs.  The  frontiers  of  Europe  would  be  the 
frontiers  of  Germany  in  Europe." 

But  this  scheme  of  Germanic  expansion  does 
not  end  with  the  unification  of  the  Teutonic  race  in 
Europe.  There  would  be  other  Germanies,  all 
definitely  outlined  and  marked  in  colors :  an  Afri- 
can Germany,  stretching  across  the  dark  con- 
tinent from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Indian  Ocean;  a 
near  Asiatic  Germany,  covering  the  whole  of  the 
Ottoman  Empire;  a  far  Asiatic  Germany,  em- 
bracing the  greater  part  of  China;  an  oceanic 
Germany,  including  all  the  Dutch  islands  in  the 
Pacific;  and  even  an  American  Germany,  cover- 
ing the  whole  of  the  southern  half  of  South  Amer- 
ica. Such  are  the  Teutonic  ambitions  and  the 
Teutonic  plans  of  conquest  as  delineated  upon 
Tannenberg 's  future  map  of  the  world. 

Wherever  there  are  Germans,  wherever  Ger- 
mans go,  there  the  standard  of  the  imperial  eagle 
should  be  set  up.  "We  are  eighty-seven  millions 
of  representatives  of  German  nationality  on  our 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  95 

continent,"  runs  this  exhortation  to  universal 
dominion.  "Our  country  is  the  most  populous, 
the  best  organized.  The  new  era  is  at  hand.  We 
shall  fight  and  we  shall  conquer.  ...  If  in  the 
time  of  the  great  migrations  a  man  of  mental  and 
military  strength  had  arisen  to  group  the  formid- 
able, unnumbered,  and  innumerable  mass  of  the 
German  people,  to  give  it  one  will,  one  thought, 
in  politics  or  in  religion,  that  admirable  force, 
perhaps  the  greatest  that  has  ever  existed,  would 
not  have  been  dissipated  by  an  insensate  individ- 
ualism. The  movement  would  have  united  to 
the  force  of  Islam  the  German  tenacity.  .  .  .  The 
culture  of  Europe  would,  to-day,  be  purely  Ger- 
man, and  with  it  the  entire  world." 

How  terrific  this  incorrigible  spirit  of  tribalism 
is  can  be  realized  only  when  we  stop  to  reflect 
what  the  culture  of  the  time  of  the  great  migra- 
tions was,  and  what  this  unchained  brute  force 
and  tenacity  would  have  inflicted  upon  Europe, 
if  it  had  never  been  tempered  and  ameliorated 
by  the  Latin  influences  that  gave  it  the  first  sem- 
blance to  civilization. 

"In  the  good  old  time,"  writes  Tannenberg,  "it 
sometimes  happened  that  a  strong  people  attacked 


96     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

a  feeble  one,  exterminated  it,  and  expelled  it  from 
its  patrimony.  To-day  these  acts  of  violence  are 
no  longer  committed.  To-day,  everything  goes 
gently  in  this  poor  world,  and  the  privileged  are 
for  peace.  The  little  peoples  and  the  debris  of 
peoples  have  invented  a  new  word,  ^International 
Right.'  At  bottom  it  is  nothing  but  a  calcula- 
tion based  upon  our  stupid  generosity.  .  .  . 
Some  one  should  make  room;  either  the  Slavs  of 
the  West  or  the  South,  or  ourselves !  As  we  are 
the  strongest,  the  choice  will  not  be  difficult.  .  .  . 
A  people  can  maintain  itself  only  by  growing.  .  .  . 
Greater  Germany  is  possible  only  through  a  strug- 
gle with  Europe.  Russia,  France,  and  England 
will  oppose  the  foundation  of  Greater^  Germany. 
Austria,  powerless  as  she  is,  will  not  weigh  much 
in  the  balance.  At  all  events,  Germans  will  not 
march  against  Germany.'' 

The  aim  is  not  wanting  in  clear-sightedness. 
Not  everything  can  be  accomplished  at  once.  ''A 
customs  union  of  Greater  Germany,"  runs  the 
project,  *'with  the  countries  of  the  Balkans  and 
the  Danube  would  be  in  their  interest  as  well  as 
ours.  On  the  one  side.  Greater  Germany,  a  world 
power,  a  country  industrial  and  commercial;  on 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  97 

the  other,  the  Magyars,  the  Rumanians,  the  Serbs, 
the  Bulgars,  the  Albanians,  the  Greeks, — ^peoples 
exclusively  agricultural.  ...  By  that  accord, 
the  commerce  of  the  East,  of  Syria,  and  of  Meso- 
potamia would  fall  into  our  hands,  .  .  .  not  only 
a  market  for  the  products  of  industry  of  the 
mother-country,  but  also  a  point  d'appui  and  an 
advance  toward  our  expansion  in  the  Far  East 
and  in  Africa." 

Of  course  none  of  these  aspirations  is  put  forth 
with  official  authority,  but  not  being  contradicted, 
they  appear  to  have  a  certain  sanction.  Certainly 
they  have  never  been  disavowed  by  the  Imperial 
German  Government.  In  part,  at  least,  they  have 
very  high  confirmation.  Prince  von  Biilow,  for 
example,  writes:  "We  have  carefully  cultivated 
good  relations  with  Turkey  and  Islam,  especially 
since  the  journey  to  the  East  undertaken  by  our 
Emperor  and  Empress.  These  relations  are  not 
of  a  sentimental  nature,  for  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  Turkey  serves  our  interest  from  the  indus- 
trial, military,  and  political  points  of  view.  In- 
dustrially and  financially,  Turkey  offered  us  a 
rich  and  fertile  field  of  activity  .  .  .  which  we 
have  cultivated  with  profit";  and  he  concludes  by 


98     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

expressing  the  reliance  of  Germany  upon  Turkey 
'4n  the  event  of  a  general  European  war,"  while 
for  Austria  Turkey  is  described  as  "the  most  con- 
venient neighbor  possible."  For  Prince  von 
Biilow,  as  he  admits,  Bismarck's  opinion  that  Tur- 
key and  the  Balkans  were  not  worth  the  bones  of 
a  single  Pomeranian  grenadier  was  no  longer  to 
be  entertained.  It  v/as,  in  fact,  to  the  East  that 
his  vision  turned. 

"No  sensible  man,"  he  declares,  "will  ever  en- 
tertain the  idea  of  recovering  either  national  or 
political  influence  over  the  lands  in  the  South  and 
West  which  were  lost  so  many  centuries  ago." 
For  these  losses,  he  admits,  "compensation  has 
been  granted  by  Providence  in  the  East." 
"Those  possessions,"  he  concludes,  "we  must  and 
will  retain."  But  Prince  von  Biilow  has  never 
been  an  advocate  of  a  Little  Germany.  "Bis- 
marck's successors,"  he  declared  in  the  Reichstag, 
on  November  14,  1906,  "must  not  imitate,  but 
develop  his  policy.  If  the  course  of  events  de- 
mands that  we  transcend  the  limits  of  Bismarck's 
aims,  then  we  must  do  so." 

If  there  has,  in  fact,  as  German  statesmen  pro- 
fess, been  an  "encirclement"  of  Germany,  is  it  to 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM  99 

be  wondered  at,  in  view  of  the  frank  proclama- 
tion of  German  plans  of  territorial  expansion? 
No  part  of  the  world  has  been  considered  immune 
from  attack.  "For  us,"  says  Tannenberg,  "it  is 
a  vital  question  to  acquire  colonial  empires  which 
will  enable  us  to  remain  independent  of  the  good- 
will of  our  competitors,  offer  us  a  market  for  our 
products  and  our  industry,  and  give  us  the  possi- 
bility of  procuring  the  raw  materials  so  necessary 
and  so  precious  which  now  are  wanting.  I  men- 
tion, for  example,  only  the  need  of  cotton.  It 
may  be  to  us  of  no  importance  at  whose  expense 
it  shall  be  taken.  It  is  essential  that  we  have 
these  colonies,  and  that  is  why  we  shall  have 
them.  Whether  it  be  at  the  cost  of  England  or 
of  France,  it  is  only  a  question  of  power,  and  per- 
haps also  of  a  little  risk." 

How  much  risk  it  would  be  advisable  to  run 
may  be  inferred  from  Tannenberg's  complaint 
that  Bismarck^s  policy  was  "senile,"  because  as 
early  as  1885  it  did  not  reach  out  for  Cuba  and 
the  Philippines,  especially  Cuba,  "the  pearl  of 
the  Antilles,"  as  large  as  Bavaria,  Wlirtemberg, 
Baden,  and  Alsace  united;  which,  Tannenberg 
asserts,  "was  well  worth  a  little  war"! 


100     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

And  he  could  not  drop  this  subject  without  add- 
ing an  insult  to  the  citizens  of  German  origin  in 
the  United  States  by  saying:  *'The  position  of 
Cuba  relative  to  North  America  would  have 
created  a  new  relation  between  the  German  peo- 
ple and  the  ten  millions  of  German  emigrants 
domiciled  in  the  United  States;  and,  beside  its 
situation,  would  have  given  us  the  preponderance 
in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico." 

"After  all,"  runs  this  outspoken  exhortation  to 
aggression,  "politics  is  a  business,"  a  statement 
that  recalls  Prince  von  Billow's  observation  that 
"politics  is  a  rough  trade,  in  which  sentimental 
souls  rarely  bring  even  a  simple  piece  of  work  to 
a  successful  issue."  "Justice  and  injustice,"  con- 
tinues Tannenberg,  "are  notions  which  are  neces- 
sary only  in  civil  life."  And  yet  he  pleads  it  is 
"unjust"  that  small  states,  like  Belgium  and  Hol- 
land, should  possess  rich  colonies  and  enjoy 
nearly  double  the  per  capita  wealth  enjoyed  by 
subjects  of  the  German  Empire,  "only  because 
these  two  countries  do  not  bear  arms,  as  we  do." 
"For  that  reason,"  he  says,  "they  capitalize  what 
they  save,  and  laugh  in  our  faces."  But  why 
should  not  Germans  do  the  same?     Is  economic 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM         101 

imperialism  after  all  an  unprofitable  busi- 
ness? 

It  would  be  easy,  Tannenberg  declares,  to  make 
it  profitable.  Think  of  Luxemburg,  with  a  total 
military  strength  of  only  323  soldiers  and  officers, 
only  one  man  to  a  thousand  of  the  population! 
And  Belgium,  rich  in  colonies,  a  great  center  of 
industry  and  commerce,  with  its  coal  and  iron, 
and  only  a  paper  protection !  "Yet  Belgium,"  he 
reminds  us,  "was  once  a  part  of  the  German 
Empire. '^ 

A  subject  that  awakens  very  serious  reflection 
is  presented  in  the  appendix  to  this  remarkable 
work,  which  contains  the  text  of  the  treaties  to  be 
concluded  when  the  war  for  European  conquest 
is  ended.  By  the  imaginary  treaty  of  Brussels, 
drawn  up  in  1911,  France  cedes  to  Germany  the 
Vosges,  with  Epinal;  Moselle  and  Meuse,  with 
Nancy  and  Luneville;  the  town  of  Verdun;  and 
the  Ardennes,  with  Sedan.  France  further  gives 
asylum  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  territory,  and 
establishes  them  elsewhere  within  her  own  bor- 
ders, in  order  to  make  room  for  German  settlers; 
declares  its  assent  to  the  incorporation  of  Belgium, 
Holland,  Luxemburg,  and  Switzerland  into  the 


i 


102     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

German  Empire;  cedes  to  Germany  the  twelve 
milliards  of  francs  lent  to  Russia;  renounces  all 
colonies;  and  pays  to  Germany  a  cash  indemnity 
of  thirty-five  milliards  of  marks.  By  the  suppos- 
ititious treaty  of  Riga,  also  drawn  up  in  1911, 
Russia  cedes  vast  territories  to  Germany;  creates 
a  kingdom  of  Poland  on  its  own  soil,  where  the 
Prussian  Poles,  to  be  expelled  from  Prussian 
Poland,  may  reside ;  and  accepts  the  incorporation 
of  Austria,  ceded  by  the  Hapsburgs  to  the  Hohen- 
zollerns,  into  the  German  Empire.  As  an  in- 
ducement to  Great  Britain  to  sanction  these  pro- 
ceedings, the  French  and  Portuguese  colonies  are 
by  these  treaties  to  be  divided  between  the  two 
empires  on  the  assumption  that  British  neutrality 
would  be  thus  insured. 

In  citing  these  documents,  so  frankly  disclosing 
the  Pan-German  dream  of  expansion,  there  is  no 
intention  to  insist,  as  Andre  Cheradame  has  as- 
serted, that  these  specific  plans  were  all  contem- 
plated by  the  highest  official  authorities  of  the 
German  Empire;  but  it  is  a  disturbing  reflection 
that,  as  he  points  out,  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  whole 
program  of  the  Pan-German  propaganda,  so  far 
as  the  continent  of  Europe  is  concerned,  has,  not- 


ECONOMIC  IMPERIALISM         103 

withstanding  unexpected  opposition,  actually  been 
carried  into  temporary  effect. 

What  is  most  discouraging  from  the  point  of 
view  of  international  society  is  the  fact  that  the 
official  philosophy  of  Prussia,  which,  as  Prince 
von  Billow  reminds  us,  "attained  her  greatness  as 
a  country  of  soldiers  and  officials  .  .  .  and  to 
this  day  is  still  in  all  essentials  a  state  of  soldiers 
and  officials,"  has  taken  command  of  German 
intelligence  and  industry.  That  philosophy  is 
explicitly  stated  by  the  former  imperial  chancellor 
in  the  following  words : 

"It  is  a  law  of  life  and  development  in  history 
that,  where  two  national  civilizations  meet,  they 
fight  for  ascendancy.  In  the  struggle  between 
nationalities,  one  nation  is  the  hammer  and  the 
other  the  anvil ;  one  is  the  victor  and  the  other  the 
vanquished." 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH 

SO  long  as  governments  insist  upon  the  right 
of  a  strong  state  to  subjugate  or  to  exploit 
against  its  interest  a  weaker  state,  there  will  be 
no  international  harmony,  and  the  world  will  be 
subjected  to  the  ravages  of  recurrent  wars.  The 
attitude  of  the  great  powers  upon  this  subject  is, 
therefore,  of  the  greatest  moment,  for  it  will  de- 
termine the  fate  of  civilization;  and,  in  the  end, 
in  all  but  the  most  absolute  governments,  this 
attitude  will  be  affected  by  the  predominant  opin- 
ions of  thoughtful  men. 

It  is,  then,  of  interest  to  inquire.  What  is  the 
present  position  of  the  great  powers,  upon  whose 
decisions  the  future  peace  of  the  world  will  chiefly 
depend,  regarding  the  rights  of  the  small  states, 
and  of  those  colonial  possessions  which  in  the  past 
have  often  been  so  cruelly  exploited  for  the  benefit 

of  their  overlords  ?     In  brief,  are  there  any  powers 

104 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     105 

that  are  willing  to  submit  to  a  peaceful  decision  of 
their  own  rights  in  relation  to  the  weaker  states, 
and  voluntarily  to  subject  themselves  to  principles 
of  law  and  equity  in  their  conduct  generally? 
Upon  the  answer  to  these  questions  turns  the 
whole  problem  of  even  partial  international  or- 
ganization and  the  prospect  of  eliminating  the 
military  control  of  international  affairs.  Even 
though  it  should  be  found  that  a  certain  number 
of  powers  were  disposed  to  apply  strictly  ethical 
principles  to  their  business  transactions,  without 
throwing  their  military  force  into  the  scale,  it 
would  not  follow  that  military  force  could  be  en- 
tirely dispensed  with;  for,  as  long  as  there  re- 
mained in  the  world  even  one  formidable  military 
power  that  persisted  in  using  force  for  its  material 
advantage  and  refused  to  resort  to  pacific  means 
for  adjusting  conflicts  of  interest,  it  would  still 
be  necessary  for  the  powers  that  were  ready  to  dis- 
pense with  military  decisions  to  arm  themselves 
for  defense  against  aggression,  and  perhaps  to 
combine  their  forces  in  the  interest  of  safety  and 
justice. 

It  would,  however,  mark  the  beginning  of  a  new 
era  if  a  number  of  great  powers  were  sufficiently 


106     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

enlightened  to  perceive  that  economic  imperialism 
is,  in  effect,  an  anachronism,  and  that  their  real 
interests  would  be  better  served  by  a  combination 
not  for  the  balance  of  power,  but  for  a  decided 
preponderance  of  power,  that  would  be  able  by 
their  union,  on  the  one  hand,  to  establish  a  sys- 
tem of  legal  relations  and  conciliatory  policies ; 
and,  on  the  other,  to  render  military  exploitation 
an  unprofitable  and  even  a  dangerous  adventure. 

It  would,  undoubtedly,  be  both  unwise  and  un- 
just to  limit  in  any  way  the  extent  of  interna- 
tional union  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that,  until 
profound  changes  occur,  a  universal  union  would 
seem  to  be  impossible.  There  is  at  present  no 
unanimity  among  the  nations  regarding  any  au- 
thoritative basis  for  a  society  of  states.  No  pro- 
posal has  ever  been  made  for  the  recognition  of 
any  such  basis  in  any  international  conference. 
Because  some  powers  have  held  that  the  state  is  a 
law  to  itself,  and  that  there  is  no  law  which  it  is 
bound  to  obey,  it  has  been  impossible  even  to  sug- 
gest that  there  is  for  sovereign  states  such  a  thing 
as  outlawry.  If  there  is  in  the  nature  of  things 
no  super-state  law,  and  if  states  cannot  make  it 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     107 

without  general  consent,  then  of  course  no  state 
can  be  treated  as  an  outlaw;  for  there  is  no  stand- 
ard by  which  the  legality  of  its  conduct  may  be 
determined. 

But  it  is  still  possible  for  a  union  of  states  to  be 
formed  which  can  determine  by  what  law  its  mem- 
bers will  be  governed,  and  it  is  possible  for  them 
to  exclude  from  it  any  state  that  does  not  accept 
this  law.  It  is  likely  that  if  the  formation  of 
civil  society  had  been  suspended  until  every  bri- 
gand and  every  housebreaker  in  the  community 
was  ready  to  favor  a  law  against  robbery,  civil 
society  would  never  have  come  into  existence. 
The  only  way,  it  would  appear,  in  which  there 
is  ever  to  be  a  real  society  of  states  is  for  those 
great  powers  which  can  find  a  sufficient  commun- 
ity of  interest  to  unite  in  the  determination  that 
they  will  themselves  observe  principles  of  justice 
and  equity,  and  that  they  will  unite  their  forces 
in  defense  of  them. 

It  would  be  well  if,  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
Great  War,  or,  if  possible,  even  before  it  is  ended, 
certain  basic  principles  could  be  laid  down  that 
would  be  accepted  by  the  belligerents  as  inher- 
ently just  and  equitable,  and  solemnly  subscribed 


108     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

to  as  binding  upon  them.  Upon  no  other  basis 
would  a  permanent  peace  appear  to  be  possible. 
Any  other  result  would  be  a  mere  armistice;  for, 
whatever  it  may  have  been  in  the  beginning,  the 
present  war  is  now  declared  to  be  "a  conflict  of 
principles,"  a  battle  for  law  and  right  on  the  one 
side,  and  for  arbitrary  power  on  the  other. 

If  the  conflict  is  really  a  struggle  for  a  just  or- 
ganization of  international  relations,  it  is  of  the 
highest  importance  to  the  cause  of  civilization 
that  the  principles  necessary  to  a  true  society  of 
states  should  be  clearly  formulated  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  accepted  now,  while  the  conflict  is  still 
going  on;  and  those  who  profess  to  champion 
them  should  not  hesitate  solemnly  to  pledge  them- 
selves to  respect  and  obey  them.  We  should  then 
know  with  greater  certainty  what  the  purposes  of 
all  the  belligerents  really  are. 

In  a  book  on  ^'The  War  of  Democracy,"  Vis- 
count Bryce,  whose  writings  and  personality  are 
held  in  very  high  esteem  in  this  country,  employs 
in  the  subtitle  the  expression,  "the  struggle  for  a 
new  Europe."  What,  then,  is  this  new  Europe 
to  be  for  which,  as  Lord  Bryce  would  have  us 
believe,  the  Entente  Allies  are  struggling?     Does 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     109 

it  merely  involve  some  changes  in  political  geog- 
raphy? Thoughtful  men  will  not  be  satisfied 
with  that,  for  the  mere  shifting  of  frontiers,  how- 
ever reasonable  it  may  seem  at  the  time,  has  no 
guarantee  of  permanence  except  by  means  of 
armed  force  until  a  better  system  of  international 
relations  is  adopted.  Or  is  it  for  a  mere  form  of 
government  that  the  Allies  are  contending  ?  Who 
then  has  the  authority  to  impose  upon  Europe  a 
particular  kind  of  polity,  and  who  can  assure  us 
that  democracy,  if  made  universal,  would  always 
be  wise  and  just  and  peaceable?  No,  it  is  some- 
thing deeper  than  these  outward  changes  that  this 
experienced  historian  and  statesman  has  in  mind 
when  he  speaks  of  "the  fundamental  significance 
of  the  struggle  for  a  new  Europe."  "The  present 
war,"  he  insists,  "differs  from  all  that  have  gone 
before  it  not  only  in  its  vast  scale  and  in  the  vol- 
ume of  misery  it  has  brought  upon  the  world,  but 
also  in  the  fact  that  it  is  a  war  of  principles,  and 
a  war  in  which  the  permanent  interests  not  merely 
of  the  belligerent  powers,  but  of  all  nations,  are 
involved  as  such  interests  were  never  involvecf 
before." 

That  the  present  war  is  on  either  side  a  purely 


no     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

altruistic  championship  of  merely  abstract  prin- 
ciples cannot,  of  course,  be  pretended.  On  the 
side  of  the  Entente  Allies,  as  well  as  on  that  of 
the  Central  Powers,  immediate  national  interests 
of  great  consequence  are  involved.  But  this  does 
not  signify  that  in  its  underlying  principles  and 
in  its  ultimate  consequences  the  struggle  may  not 
in  some  sense  be  an  affair  of  all  mankind.  Our 
own  country  has  been  already  so  vitally  affected 
by  it,  and  is  now  so  deeply  involved  in  all  of  its 
results,  that  we  cannot  regard  the  fate  of  these 
principles  with  indifference.  What  is  truly  sur- 
prising to  us  in  this  cduntry  is  that  two  great  em- 
pires, lEngland  and  Russia,  and  the  French  Re- 
public, which  has  twice  quelled  the  spirit  of  im- 
perialism within  itself  and  reasserted  its  love  of 
freedom,  are  now  solidly  united  in  fighting  the 
battle  of  democracy.  Suddenly,  through  the  mys- 
terious working  of  some  intangible  but  all-per- 
vading and  overmastering  influence,  we  have 
witnessed  this  unexpected  alinement  of  nations, 
in  which  there  is  an  almost  general  repudiation 
^f  the  past,  a  reassertion  of  the  larger  claims  of 
humanity,  and  a  spirit  of  sacrifice  that  is  an  as- 
tonishment to  all  who  behold  it.     There  is  yet 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     111 

to  be  fought  a  battle  more  sublime  than  any  ever 
yet  waged  in  the  name  of  democracy,  because  it 
will  be  a  battle  for  that  which  gives  to  democracy 
its  indestructible  vitality — the  essential  dignity  of 
the  human  person,  and  its  inherent  right  to  free- 
dom, to  justice,  and  to  the  quality  of  mercy  at  the 
hands  of  one's  fellow-men.  This  is  no  tribal  ad- 
venture, no  thrust  for  territorial  expansion,  no 
quest  for  new  markets  and  undeveloped  resources, 
no  aspiration  for  world  supremacy;  but  a  con- 
solidated human  demand  that  in  the  future  the 
world  be  so  regulated  that  innocent  and  non-com- 
batant peoples  may  live  under  the  protection  of 
law,  may  depend  upon  the  sanctity  of  treaties, 
may  be  secure  in  their  independence  and  rights 
of  self-government,  and  that  the  people  of  all 
nations  may  enjoy  in  safety  the  use  of  the  great 
seas  and  oceans  which  nature  has  provided  as  the 
highways  of  peaceful  commerce  and  fruitful 
human  intercourse. 

In  its  beginning  the  European  War  was  un- 
doubtedly a  conflict  of  national  and  racial  inter- 
g|ests,  a  struggle  for  the  future  control  of  the  Baikal 
Peninsula  and  the  debris  of  the  disintegrating 
Ottoman  Empire.     Was  the  prize  to  be  possessed 


112     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

by  the  Teuton  or  the  Slav  ?  The  assassination  at 
Sarajevo  and  the  part  in  it  attributed  to  Serbia 
were  only  signals  and  excuses  for  the  beginning 
of  a  drama  already  carefully  staged  and  in  which 
the  parts  were  supposed  to  be  carefully  assigned. 
Germany  intended  that  it  should  be  a  swift,  short 
war,  in  which  the  principal  prize  would  be  won 
by  a  comparatively  small  effort,  and  others  inci- 
dentally acquired.  But  interests  were  affected 
and  forces  were  evoked  that  had  not  entered  into 
the  calculations  of  the  aggressors.  It  was  the  un- 
expected emergence  of  these  new  forces,  and  the 
nature  of  the  resistance  met  with  in  the  course 
of  the  war,  that  entirely  changed  its  character, 
and  converted  it  into  a  war  of  principles ;  for  the 
progress  of  the  conflict  disclosed  an  antithesis  of 
conceptions  regarding  matters  of  general  human 
interest  that  had  hitherto  been  unsuspected.  The 
whole  system  of  law,  treaties,  and  human  obliga- 
tions which  had  been  counted  upon  as  furnishing 
a  sure  foundation  for  civilized  society  was  sud- 
denly discovered  to  be  without  solidity.  In  the 
€|eneral  debacle  the  hopes,  the  beliefs,  even  the^ 
friendships,  with  which  the  present  century  had 
opened  so  auspiciously  in  matters  international 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     113 

were  suddenly  swept  away.  It  is  needless  to 
dwell  upon  barbarities  on  land  and  sea  that  a 
few  years  ago  would  have  been  utterly  incredible. 
Our  thoughts  must  take  a  deeper  direction.  We 
must  face  the  fact  that  we  have  not  to  deal  with 
mere  incidents,  but  with  the  underlying  causes  of 
which  they  are  the  outward  expression.  If  the 
postulates  of  economic  imperialism  are  correct, 
there  is  nothing  abnormal  in  all  this  destruction, 
desecration,  and  slaughter  at  which  the  minds 
and  consciences  of  many  have  revolted ;  for  upon 
this  assumption,  sovereign  power  is  acting  wholly 
within  its  rights,  and  is  even  engaged  in  the 
solemn  execution  of  its  sacred  duty.  There  is, 
therefore,  upon  this  assumption,  nothing  left  to 
us  but  to  arm,  mine,  fortify,  and  entrench,  re- 
pudiating internationalism  and  trusting  solely  to 
our  physical  instruments  of  defense.  In  truth, 
there  are  before  the  nations  only  two  alternatives : 
on  the  one  hand,  the  reestablishment  of  interna- 
tional existence  upon  a  more  solid  foundation 
than  that  afforded  by  military  rivalry  and  the 
supremacy  of  national  power,  and,  on  the  other, 
a  return  to  the  life  of  troglodytes.  If  the  world 
is  to  escape  permanent  international  anarchy,  it 


114     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

will  be  through  the  decision  of  governments  to 
accept  and  loyally  respect  certain  principles  of 
justice  and  mutual  obligation  in  the  form  of  a 
constitution  of  civilization  in  which  are  recog- 
nized the  reciprocal  rights  and  duties  of  separate 
nations.  It  is  within  the  capacity  of  a  few  great 
powers  to  adopt  and  maintain  such  principles; 
and  they  will  do  so  whenever  the  masses  of  the 
people,  speaking  in  their  sovereign  right,  declare 
that  their  governments  must  accept  and  conform 
to  them.  If  this  is  what  Lord  Bryce  means,  when 
he  speaks  of  the  ^'War  of  Democracy,"  then  he  is 
^  voicing  an  appeal  to  all  thoughtful  persons  in 
every  civilized  nation;  for  the  democratic  concep- 
tion, based  as  it  is  on  the  rights  of  man,  is  the  only 
true  source  of  law  for  the  rights  of  states  also, 
and  is  alone  adapted  to  that  general  extension 
which  opens  a  vision  of  a  commonwealth  of  man- 
kind in  which  all  nations,  regardless  of  terri- 
torial boundaries,  may  rightfully  claim  a  place. 

Are  there,  then,  any  nations  that  are  prepared 
to  be  guided  by  this  vision,  to  forego  the  aspira- 
tion for  world  supremacy,  and  to  unite  with  one 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     115 

another  in  the  creation  of  such  a  general  common- 
wealth ? 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  not  only  that  the  people 
of  Russia  have  overthrown  autocracy,  but  that, 
in  the  midst  of  a  great  crisis,  another  power  which 
the  world  has  regarded  as  imperial  should  openly 
recognize  the  truth  that  it  has,  by  the  forces  of 
its  own  national  development,  ceased  to  be  an 
"empire"  in  the  old  sense  of  the  word,  and  has 
become  a  confraternity  of  free  and  virtually  self- 
governing  communities. 

The  present  war  has  revealed  to  Great  Britain, 
and  made  it  evident  to  all  the  world,  that  British 
strength  does  not  at  present  consist  in  the  exer- 
cise of  an  imperium,  but  in  the  recognition  of  the 
essential  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of  what 
the  most  authoritative  British  statesmen  now  call 
the  "autonomous  colonies";  and  it  is  especially 
interesting  to  find  a  conservative,  like  Bonar  Law, 
saying  that  what  was  impossible  before  the  war 
will  be  easy  after  it,  and  that  the  relation  of  the 
dominions  to  the  mother-country  would  never 
.again  be  what  it  was  before.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  con- 
federation of  autonomous  self-governing  repub- 


116     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

lies,  rather  than  an  empire  in  the  proper  sense, 
that  is  coming  into  existence  through  this  internal 
transformation  of  the  British  Empire.  Common 
aims,  common  safety,  common  interests,  and  com- 
mon ideas — these  are  the  foundations  of  this  con- 
fraternity. It  is  not  the  bugle-call  of  imperial 
command  that  has  brought  troops  from  every 
quarter  of  the  globe  to  participate  with  Great 
Britain  in  the  present  struggle,  but  the  common 
conviction  that  democracy  is  in  danger  and  that 
free  nations  must  stand  together.  An  English 
historian,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  writes : 

This  is  a  testing  time  for  Democracy.  The  people  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  Dominions,  to  whom  all  the  world 
looks  as  trustees,  together  with  France  and  America,  of 
the  great  democratic  tradition,  are  brought  face  to  face, 
for  the  first  time,  with  their  full  responsibility  as  British 
citizens.  Upon  the  way  in  which  that  responsibility  is 
realized  and  discharged  depends  the  future  of  the  demo- 
cratic principle,  not  only  in  these  islands,  but  throughout 
the  world. 

And  this  is  the  conviction  of  the  dominions 
themselves.  To  the  astonishment  of  the  world, 
not  one  has  failed  to  respond.  Sir  Clifford  Sifton 
said  in  an  address  at  Montreal : 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     117 

Bound  by  no  constitution,  bound  by  no  law,  equity,  or 
obligation,  Canada  has  decided  as  a  nation  to  make  war. 
We  have  levied  an  army;  we  have  sent  the  greatest  army  to 
England  that  has  ever  crossed  the  Atlantic,  to  take  part 
in  the  battles  of  England.  We  have  placed  ourselves  in 
opposition  to  great  world  powers.  We  are  now  train- 
ing and  equipping  an  army  greater  than  the  combined 
forces  of  Wellington  and  Napoleon  at  the  battle  of  Water- 
loo. 

Australia,  New  Zealand,  South  Africa,  and 
even  India,  have  responded  voluntarily  in  a  simi- 
lar manner;  but  they  did  so  not  as  imperial  pos- 
sessions, but  as  virtually  independent  nations, 
sure  of  themselves,  confident  of  their  future,  and 
inspired  by  the  vision  of  a  union  in  which  for  all 
coming  time  they  are  to  be  free  and  independent 
participants.  From  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  they  have  gathered  "to  honor  their  un- 
covenanted  bond,  obedient  to  one  uncalculating 
purpose ;  and  the  fields  of  their  final  achievement, 
where  they  lie  in  a  fellowship  too  close  and  a 
peace  too  deep  to  be  broken,  are  the  image  and 
the  epitome  of  the  cause  for  which  they  fell." 

But  in  all  this  fine  consciousness  of  British 
unity  there  is  not  the  slightest  touch  of  really  im- 
perial influence.     The  Canadian  and  the  Austra- 


118     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

lian  do  not  wish  to  be  rated  as  Englishmen,  and 
would  sometimes  even  resent  it.  Common  tradi- 
tions there  are ;  but  they  are  not  merely  traditions 
of  race,  of  language,  or  of  religion.  They  are 
primarily  traditions  of  liberty.  It  is  not  the  state 
that  holds  them  together;  it  is  the  conviction  that 
all  that  makes  the  state  worth  saving  is  the  pro- 
tection it  affords  to  freedom,  the  value  it  gives  to 
the  individual  life. 

But  such  an  inspiration  can  never  end  in  a 
stolid  and  pertinacious  tribalism.  It  feels  a 
larger  kinship  and  seeks  a  wider  partnership.  It 
gives  unity  to  the  nation,  but  it  reaches  out  for 
international  friendships  and  affinities.  It  seeks 
to  establish  the  greater  commonwealth  of  nations. 
It  aspires  to  a  place  in  a  system.  And  the  same 
Canadian  who  said  that  Canada  was  ready  to 
take  part  in  the  battles  of  England  said  at  the 
same  time :  "I  say  to  you  that  Canada  must  stand 
now  as  a  nation.  .  .  .  The  nations  will  say,  if 
you  can  levy  armies  to  make  war,  you  can  attend 
to  your  own  business,  and  we  will  not  be  referred 
to  the  head  of  the  Empire;  we  want  you  to  answer 
our  questions  directly." 

By  the  force  of  its  own  free  development  de- 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     119 

mocracy  must  become  international.  In  no  other 
way  can  it  realize  its  own  security.  In  no  other 
way  can  it  attain  to  its  own  ideals.  ^'It  is  neces- 
sary/' says  a  Canadian  writer,  "to  declare  with 
utmost  haste  .  .  .  that  motives  of  national  ag- 
grandisement and  national  enmity  must  be  sub- 
ordinated to  the  desire  for  the  larger  benefits  grow- 
ing out  of  peace  and  international  good-will." 
And  never  will  the  autonomous  colonies  enter  a 
war  in  the  name  of  the  empire  in  which  they  do 
not  have  a  voice.  Said  the  high  commissioner  of 
the  Australian  Commonwealth,  Mr.  Andrew 
Fisher,  on  his  arrival  in  London : 

If  I  had  stayed  in  Scotland,  I  should  have  been  able  to 
heckle  my  member  on  questions  of  imperial  policy,  and 
to  vote  for  or  against  him  on  that  ground.  I  went  to 
Australia,  and  I  have  been  prime  minister.  But  all  the 
time  I  have  had  no  say  whatever  about  imperial  policy — 
no  say  whatever.  Now  that  can't  go  on.  There  must  be 
some  change. 

In  April,  1916,  at  the  conference  of  the  Entente 
Allies  held  at  Paris,  the  sense  of  a  commonwealth 
took  a  wider  range,  and  this  meeting,  it  has  been 
held,  assumed  the  form  of  "a  legislative  parlia- 
ment of  France,  Russia,  England,  Italy,  Belgium, 


120     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Serbia,  Japan,  and  the  self-governing  British 
Dominions."  The  subject  of  interest  was  finan- 
cial solidarity  during  the  present  war,  and  even 
after  it.  Some  of  the  exclusiveness  that  marked 
that  conference  may  vanish,  and  will  certainly 
be  diminished  after  the  war  is  over;  but  it  may 
well  be  that,  ''if  the  agreements  growing  out  of  this 
event  stand  the  test  of  time,  they  will  dispose  ef- 
fectively of  the  contention  that  dissimilar  nations 
cannot  act  in  harmony  for  their  mutual  advantage 
in  matters  international." 

Three  of  these  nations,  Britain,  France,  and 
Russia,  are  henceforth  to  be  bound  together  as  at 
the  beginning  of  the  war  it  was  never  imagined 
they  could  ever  be  by  a  new  sense  of  the  value  and 
the  meaning  of  democracy.  They  will  be  in  re- 
lations that  will  enable  them  after  the  war  to  dis- 
pense with  military  action  except  for  their  com- 
mon defense.  With  the  sincere  support  of  other 
nations  for  common  purposes,  there  should  be  no 
room  in  the  world  for  economic  imperialism  in  its 
existing  form.  Deplorable,  indeed,  would  be  a 
further  and  more  powerfully  organized  example 
of  it  by  prohibition  of  commercial  intercourse, 
which  would  be,  in  effect,  an  indefinite  prolonga- 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     121 

tion  of  international  strife  on  economic  lines. 
But  such  a  purpose  is  not  in  the  highest  interest 
of  these  powers ;  and,  when  this  comes  to  be  duly 
considered  in  the  treaties  of  peace  it  may  happily 
be  averted. 

Taking  all  its  past  into  account,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  exempt  the  British  Empire  from  the 
charge  of  economic  imperialism.  No  nation  has 
ever  been  more  constantly  actuated  by  the  spirit 
of  commercialism  sustained  by  military  force  than 
the  British.  The  fault  is  frankly  admitted  by  its 
own  historians.     Professor  Ramsay  Muir  says: 

This  motive  has  been  present  in  many  of  our  own  wars; 
it  has  been  the  predominant  motive  with  us  perhaps  more 
often  than  with  any  other  people,  from  the  time  when  we 
fought  to  overthrow  the  Spanish  monopoly  of  the  tropical 
West,  to  the  time  when  we  waged  two  wars  with  China 
in  order  to  force  open  the  gates  of  that  vast  market. 

But  Great  Britain  has  learned  the  lesson  of 
experiencer*  It  is  not  just  to  blame  a  progressive 
and  liberal  people  for  the  actions  of  the  past,  when 
other  standards  of  conduct  were  generally  ac- 
cepted, and  when  national  rivalry  was  necessi- 
tated by  the  conditions  of  the  time.     The  pressing 


122     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

question  is,  Shall  these  conditions  be  perpetuated? 
Great  Britain  now  answers,  "No." 

The  Imperial  German  Government  alleges  that 
prior  to  1914  there  was  a  conspiracy  headed  by 
Great  Britain,  to  suppress  "the  liberty  of  national 
evolution"  of  the  German  Empire  and  to  deny 
"the  freedom  of  the  seas." 

What  then  is  meant  by  "the  liberty  of  national 
evolution"  and  "the  freedom  of  the  seas"? 

Aiming  to  become  a  world  power,  Germany  has 
desired  to  possess  a  free  hand  in  acquiring  terri- 
tory in  all  parts  of  the  world,  without  being  sub- 
ject to  the  restraint  of  other  powers.  Portions  of 
every  continent  are  marked  on  the  map  as  future 
German  possessions.  "The  German  Empire," 
says  Franz  von  Liszt,  "has  not  yet  acquired  the 
title  of  a  World  Power  for  it  is  far  from  being 
comparable  with  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  either 
by  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  or  the  independ- 
ence of  its  economic  life.  Still  less  can  Austria- 
Hungary  pretend  to  this  title."  To  obtain  it  is, 
however,  he  thinks,  a  legitimate  aspiration  of  the 
Central  empires.  There  will,  of  course,  he  ad- 
mits, be  opposition  by  other  nations;  but  the  goal 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     123 

is  worthy  of  the  effort.  "The  supremacy  of  the 
world,"  he  says,  "belongs  to  the  Power  which  by 
its  geographic  configuration,  the  extent  of  its  ter- 
ritory, and  the  number  of  its  population,  possesses 
a  complete  economic  independence."  The  Ger- 
mans claim  this  as  their  rightful  inheritance. 
Their  strength,  they  consider,  gives  them  a  title 
to  it.  They  are  self -a  vowed  contestants  for  world 
supremacy. 

And  "the  freedom  of  the  seas,"  what  does  that 
imply?  It  signifies,  as  the  Imperial  German 
Government  understand  it,  the  unrestrained  privi- 
lege of  obtaining  a  colonial  empire  by  means  of 
maritime  strength. 

To  realize  such  an  ambition  there  must  be  left 
no  rival  on  the  sea  who  would  be  able  to  prevent 
it.  Speaking  of  the  sea  power  of  England,  a 
German  writer  says : 

The  war  between  her  and  us  .  .  .  turns  upon  the  mas- 
tery of  the  seas,  and  the  priceless  values  bound  up  with 
that;  and  a  coexistence  of  the  two  States,  of  which  many 
Utopians  dream,  is  ruled  out  as  definitely  as  was  the  co- 
existence of  Rome  and  Carthage.  The  antagonism  be- 
tween England  and  Germany  will,  therefore,  remain  until 
one  of  them  is  finally  brought  to  the  ground. 


124     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

It  is  this  incessant  invocation  of  war  and  the 
indisposition  to  accept  the  possibility  of  peace 
that  have  made  it  so  difficult  for  foreign  peoples 
to  understand  the  mind  of  Germany,  or  for  those 
who  wish  to  be  friends  to  explain  and  defend  the 
German  attitude  toward  other  nations.  Even  the 
German  emperor  himself  has  not  hesitated  to 
throw  out  a  challenge  to  all  the  maritime  powers. 
"I  will  never  rest,"  he  has  said,  ''until  I  have 
raised  my  navy  to  a  position  similar  to  that  occu- 
pied by  my  army."  And  the  reason  for  this  de- 
termination he  frankly  declares  in  the  words: 
''Germany's  colonial  aims  can  only  be  gained 
when  Germany  has  become  lord  of  the  ocean." 

What,  prior  to  August,  1914,  had  Great  Britain 
done  to  call  forth  an  accusation  of  irreconcilable 
hostility?  No  foreboding  of  such  antagonism  ex- 
isted in  1890,  when,  for  the  protectorate  of  Zan- 
zibar, Great  Britain  surrendered  the  island  of 
Helgoland  to  Germany;  or  in  1895,  when  that 
stronghold  became  the  fortified  gate  of  the  Kiel 
Canal  at  its  North  Sea  terminus.  Even  when  the 
first  extensive  naval  legislation  was  enacted  in 
Germany,  in  1900,  it  created  no  great  disturbance 
in  England.     The  first  indication  that  British  ap- 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     125 

prehension  was  aroused  was  the  building  of  the 
earliest  ^'dreadnaughts"  by  England  in  1905. 
But  even  in  1907  Germany  was  making  cordial 
public  professions  of  faith  in  her  English  rival's 
fairness  and  generosity.  "Everywhere  in  the 
world/'  said  a  representative  of  the  imperial  Ger- 
man foreign  office,  in  May  of  that  year,  to  a  dele- 
gation of  British  journalists,  "where  Great 
Britain  has  brought  any  country  under  her  in- 
fluence, she  has  never  suppressed  the  trade  de- 
velopments in  other  lands,  as  many  nations  have 
to  their  own  detriment.  You  have  always  de- 
voted your  energies  and  labors  to  the  opening  up 
of  the  country's  sources  of  production,  bringing 
it  nearer  to  civilization  and  progress.  You  have 
jiever  excluded  other  states  from  territories  under 
British  influence,  but  allowed  them  to  go  along 
with  you.  This  policy  of  yours  is  now  celebrat- 
ing one  of  its  greatest  triumphs  in  Egypt." 

In  the  following  summer  occurred  the  second 
conference  at  The  Hague.  Great  Britain  pro- 
posed the  limitation  of  armaments  on  the  sea,  but 
in  deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  German  delegates 
the  proposal  was  given  formal  sepulture,  with 
solemn  funeral   rites   conducted   in   a   spirit   of 


126     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

friendly  consideration  by  the  Russian  president  of 
the  conference. 

The  eager  interest  of  German  military  circles 
in  the  construction  of  the  Zeppelin  airships  in 
1908  no  doubt  really  disturbed  the  British  mind; 
for  here  was  a  device  which,  it  was  believed  in 
Germany,  would  be  able  to  float  in  triumph  over 
the  British  fleet  and  bring  to  terms  the  coast  towns 
of  the  island  and  even  London  itself.  But  Eng- 
land, under  a  Liberal  ministry,  was  not  inclined 
to  war,  and  renewed  the  proposal  of  a  holiday  in 
fleet-building,  reinforced  by  the  importunities  of 
the  United  States.  In  1914  a  treaty  had  amicably 
regulated  the  affair  of  the  Bagdad  railway. 
Even  as  late  as  July  29,  1914,  three  days  before 
the  German  declaration  of  war.  Great  Britain  was 
so  far  from  being  considered  in  Germany  as  the 
arch-conspirator  in  bringing  about  war  that  the 
Imperial  German  Government  sought  and  ex- 
pected Great  Britain's  complete  neutrality  in  the 
war  it  then  intended  to  declare  on  Russia  and 
France,  on  condition  that  Germany  would  take 
from  France  only  her  colonies  and  leave  undis- 
turbed her  territorial  integrity  on  the  continent. 
So  great  at  that  time  was  the  confidence  in  Eng- 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     127 

land's  disinclination  for  war  that  it  was  believed 
she  would  passively  consent  to  Germany's  forcible 
appropriation  of  the  French  colonies  without  even 
a  pourboire  in  compensation  for  this  indulgence. 

It  may  be  useful  to  recall  what  the  conditions 
actually  were  when  the  German  emperor  on 
August  1,  1914,  declared  war  on  Russia.  Dis- 
missing from  our  minds  for  the  moment  all  ques- 
tions regarding  the  underlying  causes  of  the  war, 
and  without  at  this  time  attempting  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  any  of  the  issues  involved  in  it,  let  us 
fix  our  attention  upon  the  military  situation  as  it 
existed  on  that  fateful  day  when  the  whole 
mechanism  of  European  security  suddenly  broke 
down. 

We  may  pass  over  the  ultimatum  to  Serbia, 
Austria's  invasion  of  Serbian  territory,  and  Rus- 
sia's resolve  to  protect  the  small  Slav  state  or  pro- 
cure a  hearing  for  its  case  as  a  question  of  Euro- 
pean interest  by  which  armed  conflict  might,  per- 
haps, have  been  avoided.  On  August  1,  the  Ger- 
man emperor  had  in  his  hands  the  following 
documents : 

1.  A  telegram  from  the  czar,  dated  July  30, 


128     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

reading:  ^'The  military  measures  which  have 
now  come  into  force  were  decided  five  days  ago 
for  reasons  of  defense  and  on  account  of  Austria's 
preparations.  I  hope  from  all  my  heart  that 
these  won't  in  any  way  interfere  with  your  part  as 
mediator,  which  I  greatly  value." 

2.  A  telegraphic  instruction  by  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  dated  July  30,  directing  Sir  Edward 
Goschen,  the  British  ambassador  at  Berlin,  to  say 
to  the  imperial  German  chancellor  "most  earn- 
estly," that  "the  one  way  of  maintaining  the  good 
relations  between  England  and  Germany  is  that 
they  should  continue  to  work  together  to  preserve 
the  peace  of  Europe ;  if  we  succeed  in  this  object, 
the  mutual  relations  of  Germany  and  England 
will,  I  believe,  be  ipso  facto  improved  and 
strengthened.  .  .  .  And  I  will  say  this:  If  the 
peace  of  Europe  can  be  preserved,  and  the  present 
crisis  safely  passed,  my  own  endeavor  will  be  to 
promote  some  arrangement  to  which  Germany 
could  be  a  party,  by  which  she  could  be  assured 
that  no  aggressive  or  hostile  policy  would  be  pur- 
sued against  her  or  her  allies  by  France,  Russia, 
and  ourselves." 

3.  A  telegram  dated  July  31,  from  Mr.  Sazo- 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     129 

noff,  Russian  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  reading 
as  follows:  "If  Austria  will  agree  to  check  the 
advance  of  her  troops  on  Serbian  territory;  if, 
recognizing  that  the  dispute  between  Austria  and 
Serbia  has  become  a  question  of  European  inter- 
est, she  will  allow  the  Great  Powers  to  look  into 
the  matter  and  decide  what  satisfaction  Serbia 
could  afford  to  the  Austro-Hungarian  Govern- 
ment without  impairing  her  rights  as  a  sovereign 
State  or  her  independence,  Russia  will  undertake 
to  maintain  her  waiting  attitude." 

4.  A  telegram  of  July  31  from  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  reading:  "If  Germany  could  get  any  rea- 
sonable proposal  put  forward  which  made  it  clear 
that  Germany  and  Austria  were  striving  to  pre- 
serve European  peace  and  that  Russia  and  France 
would  be  unreasonable  if  they  rejected  it,  I  would 
support  it  at  St.  Petersburg  and  Paris,  and  go 
the  length  of  saying  that  if  Russia  and  France 
would  not  accept  it,  His  Majesty's  Government 
would  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  conse- 
quences." 

5.  A  telegram  from  Count  Berchtold,  minister 
for  foreign  affairs  of  Austria-Hungary  to  all  Aus- 
tro-Hungarian embassies   and  legations,  dated 


130     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

July  31,  to  be  communicated  to  all  governments, 
reading:  "Negotiations  dealing  with  the  situa- 
tion are  proceeding  between  the  cabinets  at  Vienna 
and  St.  Petersburg,  and  we  still  hope  that  they 
may  lead  to  a  general  understanding." 

In  these  circumstances,  on  August  1,  the  Ger- 
man emperor,  having  received  no  reply  to  his 
demand  that  Russian  mobilization  should  cease 
within  twelve  hours,  declared  war  on  Russia,  thus 
automatically  involving  France,  Russia's  ally,  al- 
though knowing  that  France  did  not  desire  war. 
The  sole  reason  given  for  this  action  was  that 
Russia  had  not  at  that  time  ceased  the  mobiliza- 
tion of  her  army  in  defense  of  Serbia  against  Aus- 
tria's attack,  there  being  no  direct  quarrel  between 
Russia  and  Germany.  How  unjust  was  the  ulti- 
matum sent  on  the  previous  day  to  Russia,  is 
shown  by  the  telegram  of  the  German  emperor  to 
King  George,  on  August  1,  the  day  he  declared 
war  on  Russia.  The  telegram  was  sent  under 
the  impression,  which  proved  erroneous,  that 
Great  Britain  was  ready  to  guarantee  the  neu- 
trality of  France;  yet  the  German  emperor  de- 
clared that  it  was  "too  late"  to  stop  the  mobiliza- 
tion begun  on  that  day!     The  telegram  reads: 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     131 

I  have  just  received  the  communication  of  your  Govern- 
ment offering  French  neutrality  under  the  guarantee  of 
Great  Britain.  To  this  offer  there  was  added  the  question 
whether,  under  these  conditions,  Germany  would  refrain 
from  attacking  France.  For  technical  reasons  the  mobil- 
ization which  I  have  already  ordered  this  afternoon  on  two 
fronts — east  and  west — must  proceed  according  to  the  ar- 
rangements made.  A  counter  order  cannot  now  be  given, 
as  your  telegram  unfortunately  came  too  late ;  but  if  France 
offers  me  her  neutrality,  which  must  be  guaranteed  by  the 
English  army  and  navy,  I  will  naturally  give  up  the  idea 
of  an  attack  on  France  and  employ  my  troops  elsewhere. 
I  hope  that  France  will  not  be  nervous.  The  troops  on 
my  frontier  are  at  this  moment  being  kept  back  by  tele- 
graph and  by  telephone  from  crossing  the  French  fron- 
tier.    William. 

No  one  of  these  nations,  it  is  alleged,  desired  a 
general  war,  and  yet  it  came  as  a  matter  of  mili- 
tary necessity!  "I  hope  France  will  not  be 
nervous.  The  troops  on  my  frontier  are  at  this 
moment  being  held  back  by  telegraph  and  tele- 
phone from  crossing  the  French  frontier."  And, 
according  to  Berlin,  mobilization  had  not  even 
been  ordered  until  five  o'clock  of  that  same  day! 

What  a  white  light  is  poured  by  this  last  tele- 
gram upon  the  mechanism  of  destruction  that  had 
been  so  laboriously  prepared !     Only  one  man  in 


132     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Europe  who  could  stop  the  war,  and  he  caught  in 
the  fatal  toils  of  his  own  machinery!  For  tech- 
nical reasons,  telegram  too  late,  German  troops 
held  back  on  the  French  frontier  by  telegraph  and 
telephone — I  hope  France  will  not  be  nervous. 
But  why  this  solicitude  for  the  nerves  of  France? 
Was  Germany  also  nervous  ? 

I  am  making  here  no  accusation.  What  I  wish 
to  emphasize  is  that  the  machinery  for  preserving 
peace  had  not  been  sufficiently  organized,  while 
the  machinery  of  war  had  become  so  efficient  as 
to  be  virtually  uncontrollable.  No  one,  we  are 
assured,  wanted  war.  All  wanted  peace.  Serbia 
wanted  justice.  So  also,  it  is  said,  did  Austria. 
But  Europe  had  not  provided  for  justice  to  a  small 
state. 

The  time  has  come  when  Europe  should  reas- 
sert its  moral  unity  and  make  an  end  of  tribalism. 
All  the  machinery  for  international  cooperation 
already  exists,  and  needs  only  the  adjustment  of 
it  to  the  purposes  of  peace.  The  railways  and 
the  steamships  that  have  facilitated  the  mobiliza- 
tion of  troops  and  munitions  of  war,  the  tele- 
graphic lines  which  have  transmitted  the  orders 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     133 

setting  great  armies  in  motion,  the  vast  factories 
that  have  been  forging  instruments  of  destruc- 
tion, are  already  there,  waiting  to  convey  the  mer- 
chandise, communicate  the  messages,  and  produce 
the  commodities  of  peace.  The  one  thing  lacking 
is  the  effective  organization  of  international  jus- 
tice. Let  it  once  be  agreed  that  each  people  shall 
be  secure  in  its  freedom  and  independence,  and 
that  nations  may  be  as  sure  of  justice  as  are  in- 
dividual men  in  a  well-organized  state,  and  the 
transformation  would  be  already  accomplished. 

Depending,  as  it  does,  upon  good  faith,  this 
regeneration  is  essentially  an  inner  process  in 
the  minds  and  souls  of  men.  It  cannot  be  im- 
posed from  without.  It  cannot  be  forced  upon 
one  nation  by  another.  It  cannot  be  effected  by 
fighting.  It  will  never  come  as  the  spontaneous 
act  of  governments.  It  must  come  from  the  over- 
whelming determination  of  the  people  of  many 
nations  to  have  it  so. 

The  real  testing  time  of  democracy  will  be  the 
moment  of  victory ;  for  victory  there  must  be,  and 
yet  a  victory  that  is  not  a  conquest.  If  the  claims 
of  democracy  in  this  war  are  to  be  accepted,  it  is 
intended  to  be  a  defense  of  the  conquered  against 


134     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

the  conqueror,  a  protest  against  the  ordeal  of  bat- 
tle as  the  decisive  factor  in  determining  the  fate 
of  nations.  To  invert  the  roles  would  be  to  aban- 
don the  cause.  If  there  is  to  be  a  commonwealth 
of  nations,  the  Central  Powers  should  not  be  ex- 
cluded from  it  except  by  their  own  will.  The 
first  article  in  a  treaty  of  peace  should  be  a  state- 
ment of  the  principles  for  which  we  are  now 
fighting  in  this  war  and  the  establishment  of  a 
commonwealth  based  upon  them.  Respect  for 
treaties,  the  rights  of  the  small  states,  the  rule  of 
law,  the  abandonment  of  conquests,  the  right  of 
a  people  to  choose  its  affiliations,  the  ultimate  ex- 
tinction of  militarism  as  a  system,  the  submission 
of  justiciable  differences  to  a  competent  tribunal, 
the  responsibility  of  states  to  the  society  of  states 
— these  are  the  essential  terms  of  a  durable  treaty 
of  peace.  If  this  can  be  attained,  there  will  in- 
deed be  a  new  Europe. 

Should  a  nation  wait  to  be  vanquished  before 
accepting  such  a  peace?  Is  it  not  the  only  peace 
in  which  any  nation  can  place  its  trust  ?  Against 
any  other  the  vanquished  would  be  in  perpetual 
revolt.  But  in  such  a  peace  all  men  would  at  the 
same  time  have  the  support  of  their  own  sense  of 


VISION  OF  A  COMMONWEALTH     135 

justice  and  secure  the  realization  of  their  own 
highest  ideals.  It  would  be  to  all  the  peoples  of 
Europe  like  a  proclamation  of  emancipation. 
With  it  would  come  the  joy  of  liberty,  the  sense  of 
security,  the  flood-tide  of  human  fellowship.  For 
such  a  peace  the  mighty  host  of  the  dead  on  land 
and  sea  might  well  rejoice  if  they  could  know 
that  they  had  bought  it  with  their  lives. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  TRANSFIGURATION  OF  THE  GERMAN 
EMPIRE 

WHAT  is  the  present  attitude  of  Germany 
toward  a  commonwealth  of  nations  ?  Ac- 
cording to  the  philosophy  of  the  state  underlying 
the  practice  of  economic  imperialism,  there  is  to 
be  no  end  to  national  antagonisms  in  the  pursuit 
of  power,  and  this  conviction  seems  to  have  been 
intensified  rather  than  attenuated  in  the  minds  of 
many  Germans  during  the  progress  of  the  war. 
One  of  the  most  eminent  of  German  historians, 
Professor  Eduard  Meyer  of  Berlin,  wrote  in 
1915: 

Dispelled  for  all  time  are  the  dreams  of  those  well- 
intentioned  visionaries  who  hoped  for  a  day  when  the  na- 
tions would  be  at  peace  forever,  and  all  their  disputes 
would  be  settled  at  the  bar  of  an  international  tribunal  of 
arbitration  by  which  war  would  be  made  impossible — 
dreams  that  have  been  so  widely  entertained  in  America, 
where  the  people  have  become  effeminate  in  their  senti- 
ments in  recent  years.     The  Hague  Peace  Conferences,  in- 

136 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     137 

stituted  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Czar, — ^how  great  a  travesty 
in  the  world's  history! — and  the  palace  in  which  they 
were  held,  are  a  satire  on  the  times,  and  subsequent  events 
have  fully  justified  Germany  in  her  disinclination  at  first 
to  participate  in  this  empty  farce.^ 

It  was  at  the  high  tide  of  German  victories 
that  these  words  were  written,  and  they  serve  well 
to  indicate  what  the  permanent  attitude  of  the 
German  Empire  would  be  in  case  of  a  final  Ger- 
man triumph.  There  would  be  no  appeal  to  the 
jurists  to  define  the  equities  of  international  life. 
''A  series  of  long  and  sanguinary  wars,"  this 
writer  gravely  assures  us,  "will  mark  the  century 
upon  which  we  have  entered."  And  the  reason 
for  this  is  frankly  stated.  "The  dominating  cir- 
cumstance by  which  coming  events  will  be  most 
strongly  influenced  will  be  the  impassable  gulf 
that  has  opened  between  England  and  Germany, 
and  their  feeling  of  bitter  enmity  for  each  other. 
So  far  as  we  are  able  to  scan  the  future,"  he  con- 
tinues, "a  reconciliation  is  not  possible;  we  Ger- 
ijnans  can  never  forget  how  England  has  served 
And    for   this    reason   the   conclusion    is 


^- 


1  Neither  conference  was,  in  fact,  held  in  the  so-called  Palace 
of  Peace.  The  first  assembled  in  the  House  in  the  Wood,  the 
second  in  the  Hall  of  the  Knights. 


138     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

reached  that  *'the  era  of  internationalism  is  past 
and  will  never  return.  It  will  be  replaced  by  a 
period  of  vigorous  and  ruthless  assertion  of  na- 
tional ambition, — ^the  struggle  of  the  nations  with 
one  another.  ...  To  return  to  the  paths  of  In- 
ternationalism, and  again  sacrifice  interests  of 
great  importance  to  ourselves  for  the  sake  of  it, 
would  be  a  crime  against  our  own  people." 

This  deliberate  repudiation  of  the  idea  of  an 
international  community  of  interests  and  obliga- 
tions expresses  an  entirely  new  attitude,  which  no 
nation  in  modern  times  has  ever  yet  taken.  It 
sweeps  away  with  disdain  the  whole  foundation 
upon  which  a  society  of  states  must  be  based. 
For  such  a  society  it  would  substitute  the  absolute, 
all-dominating  power  of  an  organization  which 
contains  in  itself  no  standard  or  consciousness  of 
rectitude.  ^'To  us  Germans,"  Professor  Meyer 
says,  ^'the  state  is  the  most  indispensable  as  well 
as  the  highest  requisite  of  our  earthly  existence. 
.  .  .  The  state  is  of  much  higher  importance  than 
any  individual  groups,  and  eventually  is  of  infi- 
nitely more  value  than  the  sum  of  all  the  indi- 
viduals   within    its    jurisdiction."     The    reason 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     139 

given  for  this  assertion  is  that  the  state  *'has  a  life 
apart;  its  mission  is  unending;  and,  in  theory  at 
least,  unless  it  is  wrecked  by  a  force  from  without, 
its  existence  is  endless,  encompassing  as  it  does  all 
the  generations  yet  to  come,  and  welding  them  into 
a  great  unit, — the  mighty  life  of  a  nation  acting 
its  part  in  the  history  of  the  world." 

This  is,  in  substance,  the  state  as  Hegel  con- 
ceived it,  with  the  divinity  left  out.  As  now  rep- 
resented, the  empire  is  a  "splendidly  creative 
monarchy''  possessed  of  absolute  power,  no  longer 
pretending  to  be  divine,  and  confessedly  very 
narrowly  human ;  for,  as  this  theory  of  empire  ex- 
presses it,  "the  final  decision  in  every  measure 
undertaken  rests  with  the  sovereign,  who  there- 
fore assumes  full  responsibility  for  it,  and  no  one 
can  relieve  him  of  it."  But  as  the  sovereign  in 
this  conception  is  the  sole  personal  representative 
of  the  state,  and  the  state  is  of  "infinitely  more 
value  than  the  sum  of  all  the  individuals  within 
its  jurisdiction,"  there  is  no  one  entitled  to  hold 
him  responsible,  no  standard  by  which  to  measure 
his  responsibility.  If  at  his  command  millions 
of  men,  no  matter  how  many  millions,  are  slain 
in  battle,  since  all  human  beings  taken  together 


140     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

are  of  less  importance  than  the  power  and  pros- 
perity of  the  empire,  no  wrong  is  committed ;  and 
if  there  were  a  wrong,  there  would  be  no  means 
of  preventing  or  even  of  condemning  it.  "In 
this  personal  element,"  we  are  gravely  assured, 
*^lies  the  tremendous  advantage  that  a  monarchial 
government  has  over  any  other,  in  that  it  unites  in 
one  person  the  power  to  act  for  the  State,  together 
with  the  undivided  responsibility  to  conscience  for 
the  consequences  of  the  act."  And  thus  the  con- 
science of  one  man  who  holds  himself  accountable 
to  no  one,  but  whose  interest  it  is  by  any  and  all 
means  to  extend  his  power,  is  made  the  measure 
of  the  state's  responsibility. 

One  has  only  to  open  the  pages  of  the  jurists 
and  philosophers  of  an  earlier  time,  when  the 
German  peoples  and  princes  were  struggling  for 
their  local  rights  and  liberties  against  the  author- 
ity of  the  old  empire,  and  to  reread  the  history  of 
the  contests  for  the  "Germanic  liberties,"  then 
held  to  be  so  dear,  to  realize  how  completely,  even 
since  the  time  of  Bismarck,  the  conception  of  the 
German  state  has  been  transformed.  What  Ger- 
mans for  centuries  have  bitterly  fought  against 
is  now  set  forth  as  the  highest  and  noblest  achieve- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     141 

ment  of  that  race.  In  1913,  Prince  von  Billow 
was  saying,  "The  strong  control  exercised  by  the 
authorities  of  Prussia  has  always  evoked  a  par- 
ticularly vigorous  counter-movement  among  the 
German  people  themselves."  But  if  Professor 
Eduard  Meyer  is  right,  that  control  is  henceforth 
to  be  regarded  as  the  crowning  glory  of  German 
achievement.  The  triumph  of  German  imperial- 
ism, which  at  the  time  he  wrote  seemed  to  Pro- 
fessor Meyer  so  certain,  would  in  his  opinion 
create  a  condition  in  which  the  ultimate  law  for 
the  German  people  would  be  the  conscience  of  the 
German  emperor.  "The  world  in  which  we  shall 
find  ourselves  after  peace  has  been  concluded," 
he  says,  "will  be  totally  different  from  the  one 
with  which  we  have  been  familiar,  even  should 
there  be  no  outward  change,  no  shifting  of  the 
old-time  boundary  lines.  This  war  is  not  only 
the  greatest  war  in  the  history  of  mankind,  it  is 
the  most  epoch-making  event  of  modern  history. 
The  world  as  we  knew  it  before  August  1,  1914, 
has  ceased  to  be.  What  precedes  that  date  seems 
to  belong  to  a  remote  past,  so  far  removed  from 
us  that  we  can  hardly  realize  that  we  had  a  share 
in  it." 


142     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  world  will 
never  be  the  same  that  it  was  on  August  1,  1914, 
when  one  man,  responsible  only  to  his  own  con- 
science, plunged  Europe  into  war;  but  what  is 
new  and  startling  in  Professor  Meyer's  concep- 
tion of  the  future  is  the  intended  transformation 
in  the  idea  of  the  German  Empire  which  it  re- 
veals. From  its  inception  the  empire  was  with- 
out doubt  an  autocratic  structure  with  enormously 
centralized  powers ;  but  neither  its  author.  Prince 
von  Bismarck,  nor  its  apologist.  Prince  von 
Biilow,  in  their  most  rapturous  moments  of  devo- 
tion to  their  sovereigns  would  have  called  it  "a 
splendid  creative  monarchy"  in  which  the  con- 
science of  the  sovereign  is  the  highest  law  of  the 
nation.  Bismarck  would  have  recalled  that  his 
own  acts  in  creating  it  were  performed  in  a  man- 
ner that  the  conscience  of  William  I  certainly  did 
not  inspire,  and  Biilow  could  not  have  forgot- 
ten that  in  1908  it  was  his  function  as  imperial 
chancellor  to  quiet  the  disturbance  of  the  public 
mind  caused  by  the  indiscreet  utterances  of  Wil- 
liam II  in  the  Daily  Telegraph  interview,  and  to 
pledge  his  own  honor  that  he  would  not  again 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     143 

permit  the  emperor  to  act  without  the  responsible 
advice  of  his  councilors. 

Before  1914  the  constitution  of  the  German 
Empire  was  not  interpreted  as  a  monarchy,  but  as 
a  confederation  of  monarchies,  which,  in  its  own 
terms,  is  "an  eternal  alliance  for  the  protection  of 
the  territory  of  the  Confederation,  and  of  the 
rights  of  the  same  as  well  as  the  promotion  of  the 
welfare  of  the  German  people."  It  is  a  confed- 
eration of  coordinate  monarchs  and  three  free 
city-republics.  "To  the  King  of  Prussia,"  reads 
the  eleventh  article,  "shall  belong  the  presidency 
of  the  Confederation,  and  he  shall  have  the  title 
of  German  Emperor";  but  he  is  nowhere  referred 
to  as  a  monarch  except  in  Prussia.  His  imperial 
powers  of  control  and  appointment  are  very  great, 
especially  in  time  of  war,  since  "all  German 
troops  are  bound  to  render  unconditional  obedi- 
ence to  the  commands  of  the  Emperor";  but  his 
duties  and  powers,  though  broad,  are  neverthe- 
less to  some  extent  enumerated  and  defined. 
They  are  quite  definitely  limited  by  the  Bundes- 
rat,  and  apparently,  but  not  really,  by  the  popu- 
larly elected  Reichstag,  which  is  in  effect  a  mere 


144     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

debating  society,  which  the  Germans  themselves 
have  named  "The  hall  of  echoes."  It  is  of  inter- 
est to  note,  however,  that  the  powers  of  the 
Bundesrat  and  the  Reichstag  are  specified  in  the 
constitution  before  the  presidency  is  even  men- 
tioned. 

The  truth  is  that  the  constitution  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire  is,  and  probably  was  designed  to  be, 
an  extremely  ambiguous  document  capable  of  be- 
ing construed  as  creating  a  truly  constitutional 
government,  but  well  adapted  to  such  perversions 
and  usurpations  of  power  as  an  autocratic  ruler, 
especially  in  time  of  war  and  in  absolute  com- 
mand of  an  immense  and  well-disciplined  army, 
might  choose  to  make. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  war  has 
developed  new  interpretations  of  the  imperial  con- 
stitution, and  that  in  the  hours  of  apparent  vic- 
tory the  Byzantinism  that  even  in  time  of  peace 
had  become  so  conspicuous  among  the  German 
functionaries  and  aspirants  to  imperial  favor 
should  be  exaggerated,  with  the  result  of  attribut- 
ing to  the  emperor  powers  which  the  people  never 
supposed  that  he  legally  possessed ;  for,  although 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     145 

it  was  the  sovereigns  and  not  the  people  of  Ger- 
many who  made  the  constitution  of  the  empire, 
the  people  have  assumed  that  it  was  made  in  their 
interest  and  not  for  their  enslavement. 

The  recent  revelation  that  the  war  may  not 
bring  forth  a  German  victory  has  created  a  wide- 
spread interest  in  the  real  meaning  of  the  consti- 
tution and  a  new  desire  for  popular  control  of  the 
government.  The  German  Empire  is  undoubt- 
edly on  the  brink  of  changes  which  are  at  present 
incalculable,  for  the  character  of  these  changes 
will  depend  upon  the  eventualities  of  the  war.  A 
German  defeat  would  unquestionably  result  in 
radical  revision  of  the  constitutional  organization 
of  the  empire  and  important  restrictions  upon  the 
powers  of  the  emperor,  not  excluding  a  possibil- 
ity of  even  more  fundamental  changes.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Central  Powers  suffer  no  seri- 
ous defeat,  and  especially  if  the  plans  of  the  Pan- 
Germanists  are  in  any  important  degree  success- 
ful, it  is  with  this  new  conception  of  imperial  au- 
tocracy that  the  rest  of  the  world  will  hereafter 
have  to  contend.  The  complete  triumph  of  the 
Central  Powers  would  mean  the  triumph  of  the 


146     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Prussian  monarchy,  and  would  confirm  its  su- 
premacy over  the  entire  German  Empire  and  its 
present  allies. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importsince  to  the  peace  of 
the  world  to  take  into  account  the  critical  situa- 
tion which  is  created  for  Europe  by  this  new  con- 
ception which  the  war  has  generated  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire  as  "a  splendid  creative  monarchy." 
There  is  in  this  conception  no  repudiation  of  the 
Pan-German  plans  of  expansion.  On  the  con- 
trary, there  is  an  explicit  assertion  that  if  they  are 
now  destined  to  be  defeated,  the  world's  peace 
will  suffer  for  it,  since  nothing  short  of  an  im- 
perial victory  will  prevent  the  prospect  of  future 
wars.  The  "hammer  and  anvil"  philosophy  of 
history  is  vigorously  reasserted,  and  Germany  in- 
tends to  be  always  the  hammer  and  never  the 
anvil.  "It  is  impossible,"  writes  Professor 
Meyer,  "to  pierce  the  veil  that  hides  the  future, 
and  to  foretell  that  which  will  come  to  pass.  Yet 
even  now  every  German  must  clearly  discern  that, 
if  the  German  nation  would  maintain  its  position 
in  the  world,  there  are  three  things  that  we  must 
cleave  to  as  the  inviolable  basis  of  our  independ- 
ent and  vigorous  existence."     These,  he  says,  are 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     147 

"our  military  organization,  our  economic  organ- 
ization, together  with  protection  for  our  agricul- 
tural industries,  for  by  these  the  necessities  of  life 
are  assured  to  us  and  we  are  made  independent 
of  supplies  from  abroad;  and,  lastly,  a  virile 
monarchial  government,  wholly  independent  to 
act,  that  it  may  be  free  to  combine  and  utilize 
in  creative  activity  all  the  forces  of  which  the  na- 
tion is  capable.  For  the  beneficent  results  of  this 
activity  we  had  every  reason  to  be  grateful,"  he 
concludes,  "when  the  outbreak  of  the  war  found 
us  fully  supplied  with  material  and  thoroughly 
prepared,  while  every  day  that  the  war  continues 
gives  us  renewed  evidence  of  its  efficiency." 

It  is,  in  fact,  the  efficiency  of  the  German  Em- 
pire in  war,  its  perfection  as  a  form  of  power,  that 
constitutes  its  great  merit  in  this  writer's  eyes,  for 
the  end  of  the  state  is  power,  not  only  creative  and 
constructive  power,  but  destructive  power  as  well. 
"The  truth  of  the  whole  matter  undoubtedly  is," 
he  says,  "that  the  time  has  arrived  when  two  dis- 
tinct forms  of  state  organization" — the  German 
and  the  English — "must  face  each  other  in  a 
struggle   for  life  or  death."     They  cannot,  it 


148     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

seems,  longer  live  together  in  the  same  world. 

It  is  then  with  this  new  Germany,  if  she  is  vic- 
torious— always  prepared  for  war,  trusting  only 
to  the  sword,  believing  in  the  necessity  of  future 
wars,  bent  on  "creative  activity"  in  the  develop- 
ment of  her  "vigorous  existence,"  under  the  com- 
mand of  "one  man  wholly  independent  to  act," 
and  opposed  to  internationalism, — that,  if  this 
interpretation  of  imperial  purpose  is  correct,  the 
other  nations  of  the  earth  will  have  to  live.  If 
there  is  to  be  peace,  Germany  contends,  it  must 
be  a  peace  imposed  by  the  conqueror  in  which 
other  forms  of  state  organization  will  have  to 
yield  to  imperial  supremacy.  Such  is  the  claim, 
and  such  is  the  boast. 

Certainly,  this  is  not  the  old  Germany  that  we 
knew  and  loved,  the  teacher  of  music  and  poetry, 
science  and  philosophy,  art  and  literature.  A 
thousand  memories  of  kindly  faces  and  sweet 
voices  and  delicate  attentions  flood  in  upon  our 
minds  as  we  compare  the  present  with  the  past. 
The  land  of  song,  the  home  of  the  humanities, 
the  embodiment  of  GemutUchkeit,  are  they  really 
gone  forever?  And  what  has  any  one  done  to 
Germany  that  she  should  now  wish  to  estrange 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     149 

herself  from  all  the  world?  Does  she  really  re- 
pudiate internationalism?  Hereafter  will  there 
be  in  the  world  no  welcome  ports  for  her  great 
fleets  of  merchantmen  as  of  old?  Shall  we  not 
again  sail  the  wide  ocean  with  her  great  captains  ? 
Shall  we  not  learn  again  of  the  great  masters  who 
have  been  our  teachers?  Tear  out  that  page, 
Professor  Meyer,  and  write  it  in  another  mood. 
What  can  the  German  Empire  expect  of  a  world 
in  which  there  is  no  internationalism?  What  is 
to  be  its  place  among  the  nations?  And  whose 
fault  is  it  that  there  is  to  be  no  internationalism  ? 
Who  has  been  the  first  to  violate  treaties  ?  Who 
has  been  the  first  to  decline  to  let  Europe  decide 
what  was  from  its  very  nature  a  European  ques- 
tion? Who  first  declared  war  in  the  midst  of 
negotiations?  Who  first  proceeded  not  against 
an  enemy  in  arms,  but  against  an  unarmed  and 
neutralized  people?  Who  first  challenged  all 
neutrals  by  a  campaign  of  frightfulness  in  which 
innocent  non-combatants,  men,  women,  and  even 
little  children,  were  shattered  into  fragments  by 
explosions,  or  mercilessly  drowned  in  the  sea? 
Is  the  right  to  live  in  the  world  a  question  for  the 
conscience  of  one  man?     Shall  the  burden  of  guilt 


150     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

in  the  struggle  for  empire  be  made  to  rest  upon 
one  human  being  and  not  fall  also  upon  those 
who  have  intended  to  profit  by  it?  And,  finally, 
can  it  be  expected  that  the  world  will  remain 
friendly  with  a  nation  that  organizes  assassina- 
tion as  a  means  to  power? 

We  may  as  well  frankly  recognize  the  fact  first 
as  last,  that  German  imperial  aggression  does  not 
grow  entirely  out  of  the  adoration  of  a  dynasty 
nor  out  of  its  compulsion,  nor  is  it  purely  the  re- 
sult of  a  philosophic  theory  of  the  state.  It  is 
because  dynasties  serve  national  purposes  that 
they  are  invested  with  peculiar  sanctity,  and  it  is 
because  an  imperial  government  can  increase  the 
power  of  a  people  over  other  peoples  that  the  aid 
of  philosophy  is  invoked  to  sustain  its  prestige. 
When  we  appeal  to  history  the  evidence  of  this  is 
overwhelming.  What  has  reconciled  Germany 
to  the  overlordship  of  Prussia  is  the  material  ad- 
vantages that  have  been  derived  from  German 
unity.  For  the  wave  of  conquest,  which  orig- 
inally proceeded  from  the  Mark  Brandenburg 
and  derived  the  name  of  Prussia  (Bo-Russia) 
from  the  annexation  of  a  Slavic  province  of  Po- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     151 

land  obtained  by  a  union  of  war  and  diplomacy, 
there  is  no  sentiment  of  reverence  in  the  German 
heart.  The  Germans  know  too  well  their  own 
history.  An  empire  ruled  by  Prussia  would  have 
been  repudiated  in  the  first  decades  of  its  exist- 
ence had  it  not  brought  extensive  economical  ad- 
vantages to  all  the  German  states.  This  it  un- 
doubtedly has  done,  and  the  appreciation  of  it  is 
heightened  by  the  expectation  that. the  centralized 
power  of  a  unified  Germany  will  procure  further 
gains  to  the  German  people,  new  employment  for 
their  labor,  new  markets  for  their  goods,  new  re- 
sources 'for  their  exploitation.  The  Pan-Ger- 
manist  program  is  not  really  founded  on  race 
affinity  or  sentiment  of  any  kind.  It  aims  at  the 
extension  of  the  empire  because  it  is  regarded  as 
a  fruitful  tree,  the  growth  of  which  will  not  only 
cast  a  protecting  shade,  but  bear  rich  fruits  for 
the  German  people. 

This  aspect  of  German  imperialism  is  well 
illustrated  in  such  works  as  Dr.  Friedrich  Nau- 
mann's  "Central  Europe"  ("Mittel-Europa") 
and  Professor  Harms  on  "Germany's  Share  in  the 
World's  Trade";  the  latter  manifesting  a  very 
lively  sense  of  the  economic  importance  to  Ger- 


152     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

many  of  international  trade,  and  of  the  disadvan- 
tage that  would  be  incurred  if  foreign  markets 
were  lost  to  her. 

It  is  Dr.  Naumann,  however,  whose  circle  of 
readers  is  very  wide  and  whose  authority  as  a 
popular  writer  and  as  a  member  of  the  Reichstag 
is  very  great,  who  best  interprets  the  dominat- 
ing thought  in  current  German  political  plans 
for  the  future.  Writing  in  the  midst  of  war  and 
under  the  inspiration  of  war,  he  presents  to  us 
his  vision  of  a  new  Central  Europe  great  enough 
and  strong  enough  to  hold  an  undisputed  place 
in  the  midst  of  permanently  hostile  nations,  giv- 
ing to  Deutschtum  a  rock-ribbed  security  in  which 
to  abide  its  time  for  that  military  development 
and  that  economic  expansion  to  which  he  believes 
that  the  German  peoples  are  entitled.  Only  in 
the  midst  of  war,  it  is  contended,  could  the  mind 
be  prepared  to  comprehend  the  need  and  the  im- 
port of  such  a  vast  conception;  for  Mittel-Europa 
— the  further  extended,  further  energized,  and 
further  fortified  Teutonic  empire  of  the  future — 
could  never  even  be  conceived  by  the  ordinary 
every-day  spirit.  "As  Bismarck,  in  the  midst 
of  the  war  of  1870  and  not  after  it  had  ended,  be- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     153 

held  a  vision  of  the  German  Empire,"  he  writes, 
"so  in  the  midst  of  war,  in  the  flowing  of  blood 
and  the  commotion  of  peoples,  will  be  laid  by  our 
statesmen  the  foundations  of  the  new  construc- 
tion." 

What  then  is  this  new  imperial  edifice  to  in- 
clude? It  is,  in  the  words  of  its  projector,  to 
consist  in  nothing  less  than  "the  coalescence  of 
those  states  which  belong  neither  to  the  Anglo- 
French  Alliance  nor  to  the  Russian  Empire;  but, 
above  all,  the  combination  of  the  German  Empire 
and  the  Austro-Hungarian  Dual  Monarchy,  since 
all  further  plans  for  the  uniting  of  the  Central 
European  peoples  depend  upon  the  success  at- 
tending the  union  of  the  two  Central  States." 

The  necessity  for  this  union,  Naumann  thinks, 
is  absolute,  for  the  reason  that  the  day  for  the 
role  of  small  states  in  history  is  forever  past.  In 
the  old  Europe  the  small  states  had  a  natural 
place.  Germany  was  entirely  composed  of  them, 
but,  always  discordant,  they  presented  a  shifting 
picture  of  struggling  princes,  each  actuated  by 
his  own  interest  and  rarely  forming  combinations 
of  historical  significance.  Like  clouds  they  sud- 
denly gathered  and  as  suddenly  were  dissipated. 


154     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

The  so-called  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the  Ger- 
man Nation,  in  which  the  German  states  nomi- 
nally existed,  was  under  the  house  of  Hapsburg 
utterly  devoid  of  unity,  the  greater  half  nearly 
always  subject  to  foreign  influence  insinuated  un- 
der the  pretense  of  protecting  them  against  the 
authority  of  the  empire  of  which  they  formed  a 
part. 

To-day,  under  the  pressure  of  a  common  hos- 
tility, the  German  Empire,  unified  by  Prussia, 
and  the  Austro-Hungarian  Dual  Monarchy,  feel- 
ing their  common  necessity  of  cooperation,  are 
aware  of  being  united  in  a  struggle  for  their  ex- 
istence. No  longer  is  separatism  to  be  defended. 
War  has  created  a  Central  European  soul,  which 
must  now,  he  thinks,  take  on  a  body  fitted  to  its 
needs. 

But  it  is  not  a  mere  temporary  exigency  that 
has  brought  about  this  result.  Great  business 
has  necessitated  great  politics,  and  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  state  must  correspond  to  them.  We 
must,  says  Naumann,  as  Cecil  Rhodes  expressed 
it,  "think  in  continents."  Sovereignty  in  any 
real  sense  can  hardly  any  longer  be  ascribed  to 
the  little  peoples.     Without  allies  they  are  noth- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     155 

ing.  Isolation  is  weakness  and  danger.  Even 
Prussia,  alone,  is  too  small  for  a  modern  state. 
"The  State,''  Treitschke  taught,  "is  power";  and 
he  added,  "There  is  something  laughable  in  the 
idea  of  a  small  State."  No  doubt  amidst  the 
battle  of  giants  it  may  seem  laughable  for  the 
physically  feeble  to  demand  freedom  or  even  jus- 
tice, and  yet,  as  has  been  well  said,  "there  is 
something  unpardonably  brutal  in  such  laugh- 
ter." There  being  no  historical  role  for  the  small 
states  according  to  this  philosophy,  they  do  not 
enter  at  all  into  the  groundwork  of  Central  Eu- 
rope. They  would  prove  too  independent,  too 
refractory,  and  certainly  too  feebly  inspired  by 
the  imperial  spirit,  to  be  combined  in  the  active 
and  potent  nucleus  of  power  required  for  the  real- 
ization of  this  great  political  conception.  Italy, 
if  it  were  more  amenable  to  Teutonic  influence, 
might  be  an  acceptable  acquisition;  but,  at  pres- 
ent, it  is  too  Latin  in  its  affinities  to  be  incor- 
porated in  the  body  of  Central  Europe.  Like 
Holland,  Switzerland,  the  Balkan  States,  Tur- 
key and  the  Scandinavian  countries,  Italy  is  on 
the  whole  too  peripheral  to  form  a  vital  organ  in 
this  new  organism.     All  these  countries,  despite 


156     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

the  greatly  enhanced  quantitative  conception  of 
the  modern  state  as  a  great  power,  "since  they  still 
have  before  them  historical  waiting-time  for  their 
decision,"  are  to  be  held  for  the  time  being  in 
solution.  The  first  and  pressing  necessity  is  to 
create  that  nucleus  of  Central  Europe — the  com- 
bination of  the  German  Empire  and  Austria- 
Hungary — around  which  the  little  states  may 
ultimately  crystallize ;  for  these,  Naumann  thinks, 
when  they  once  "see  with  open  eyes"  what  their 
future  position  will  be,  will  one  by  one  seek  safety 
and  advantage  by  adhering  to  the  Central  Powers. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  Naumann's  program  for 
the  future.  It  is  a  program  only,  but"  it  is  one 
upon  which  he  expends  a  lavish  art  in  order  to 
give  it  all  possible  attractiveness. 

In  his  estimation,  the  critical  moment,  will  be 
in  the  negotiations  for  peace.  What  the  terms  of 
peace  will  be  he  prudently  does  not  attempt  to 
say;  but  whatever  they  are,  "whether  the  outer 
limits  of  the  central  empires  of  Middle  Europe 
are  to  be  bent  somewhat  more  toward  the  West 
or  toward  the  East,  upon  the  ground  of  military 
triumph,  the  question  in  all  circumstances  re- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     157 

mains :  whether  the  plenipotentiaries  from  Berlin, 
Vienna,  and  Budapest  leave  the  hall  of  the  Peace 
Congress  as  clear,  true  friends  or  as  secret 
enemies."  "We  wish,"  he  continues,  "that  they 
return  to  their  peoples  with  the  solution:  ^Eter- 
nally undivided.'  " 

In  that  case  no  doubt  Europe  will  enter  upon 
a  period  of  development  differing  widely  from 
the  past.  But  will  that  union  be  achieved  ?  No 
one  better  than  the  projector  of  Central  Europe 
understands  that  the  answer  to  the  question  can 
not  be  certain.  "All  wars  of  coalition  since  re- 
mote antiquity,"  he  says,  "have  been  attended 
with  difficult  conclusions  of  peace,  for  they  have 
always  ended  with  gains  and  losses  that  must  be 
reconciled  with  one  another."  Such  a  peace  as 
that  of  1815  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  Naumann 
insists,  must  not  be  repeated.  The  one  really 
great  trophy  of  the  war  will  be  wrapped  up  in  the 
question  of  permanent  union.  If  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  Monarchy  and  the  German  Empire 
can  be  kept  asunder,  that  will  be  for  the  En- 
tente Powers  a  great  and  permanent  victory.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  unite  to  form  a  new 
Central    Europe,    the    sons    of    Germany    and 


158     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Austria-Hungary,  he  thinks,  will  not  have  died  in 
vain. 

It  is  not,  however,  a  general  reorganization  of 
national  life  and  a  better  assurance  of  general 
peace  that  are  expected  from  the  coalescence  of 
the  Central  empires.  It  is  rather  their  mutual 
defense  and  a  quicker  and  firmer  preparation  for 
new  military  emergencies.  In  the  negotiations 
for  peace,  it  is  admitted,  each  of  the  belligerents 
will  seek  its  freedom  as  well  as  its  advantage; 
but,  insists  Naumann,  *^it  is  an  unhistorical  form 
of  apprehension  if  one  believes  that  five  or  eight 
Great  Powers  will  leave  the  hall  of  the  Peace 
Congress  without  already  having  new  treaties  in 
their  pockets."  In  any  case,  it  will  not,  he 
thinks,  be  the  beginning  of  everlasting  peace. 
There  will  be  pacific  endeavors  and  perhaps  new 
assurances;  but  there  will  remain  unsettled  an 
incredible  number  of  new  as  well  as  old  questions 
that  will  awaken  solicitude  for  the  future.  "All 
the  ministries  of  war,  all  the  general  staffs,  all 
the  admiralties,"  Naumann  contends,  "will  re- 
flect upon  the  lessons  of  the  war  when  it  is  over; 
a  still  more  scientific  technique  will  invent  new 
weapons;  the  frontier  strongholds  will  be  made 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     159 

broader  and  more  extended.''  And  the  inference 
from  all  this  is  that  no  single  state  can  remain 
alone.  The  German  Empire  and  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  Monarchy,  if  they  are  to  survive,  he 
urges,  must  combine  for  their  mutual  safety  and 
support. 

This  necessity  arises  in  part  from  their  terri- 
torial unity,  viewed  from  an  orographical  point 
of  view.  Nature,  from  the  North  Sea  and  the 
Baltic  to  the  Alps,  the  Adriatic,  and  the  southern 
plain  of  the  Danube,  has  so  ordained  it.  "Open 
the  map,"  says  Naumann,  "and  see  what  lies  be- 
tween the  Vistula  and  the  Vosges,  what  between 
Galicia  and  the  Bodenseel  This  area  can  be 
conceived  only  as  a  unit,  as  a  well-articulated 
brother-land,  as  a  confederation  of  defense,  as  a 
self-sufficing  economic  district.  Here  must  all 
historic  particularism  in  the  stress  of  the  world- 
war  so  far  vanish  that  it  confirms  the  idea  of 
unity." 

And  as  unity  is  favored,  so  must  it  be  perma- 
nently secured  by  physical  conditions.  What 
these  conditions  are  the  war  has  revealed.  The 
best-established  result  of  a  technical  military 
character  is  that  in  the  future  fighting  will  be 


160     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

only  in  long-drawn-out  lines,  and  trenches  will 
furnish  the  basis  of  the  defense  of  the  Father- 
land. The  policy  of  the  trench  consists  in  this, 
that  every  state  must  calculate  within  what 
limits  it  can  or  cannot  establish  its  trench-de- 
fense position.  Had  the  French  entrenched  them- 
selves from  Belfort  to  Dunkirk,  it  is  asserted,  the 
invasion  of  France  through  Belgium  would  prob- 
ably have  proved  impossible.  The  same,  it  is 
insisted,  holds  good  for  the  East  Prussian  and 
Austro-Galician  frontiers.  After  the  war  fron- 
tier entrenchments  will  everywhere  be  erected 
where  the  possibilities  of  war  are  present.  New 
Chinese  walls  must  arise  if  the  nations  are  to  live 
in  friendship.  Two  long  walls  from  north  to 
south  will  divide  the  European  continent  into 
three  strips.  The  Middle  European  question  is 
whether  between  the  walls  running  north  and 
south  still  another  between  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria-Hungary will  be  needed.  Naumann  urges 
that  if  the  unity  of  future  policies  is  not  secured, 
the  necessity  will  be  imperative;  but,  if  thus  ren- 
dered necessary,  it  will  be  in  the  highest  degree 
injurious  and  full  of  evil  portent  for  both  sides. 
Inclusion  or  exclusion — these  are  the  alterna- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     161 

tives  offered  to  Austria  by  this  new  system  of  for- 
tified insularity,  here  presented  as  the  only  possi- 
ble method  of  securing  friendly  relations.  What 
is  it  that  demands  these  insurmountable  barriers 
between  nation  and  nation?  Is  it  utter  de- 
spair of  all  moral  and  legal  means  of  reconcilia- 
tion between  them?  Whence,  then,  this  inerad- 
icable incompatibility  between  the  nations  east 
and  west  of  these  mural  barricades?  What  is 
it  that  makes  it  necessary  for  all  the  future  to 
part  them  by  impassable  and  eternally  guarded 
moats?  It  is,  apparently,  that  Central  Europe 
may  be  thus  established  as  a  consolidated  Teu- 
tonic power  rendered  forever  independent  of  those 
voluntary  concessions,  adjustments,  and  agree- 
ments by  which  contiguous  peoples  have  hitherto 
regulated  their  conduct.  But  why  should  a  na- 
tion seek  this  exemption  from  the  ordinary  con- 
ditions of  human  existence  in  a  social  state?  Is 
it  merely  as  a  means  of  defense?  Is  it  to  pre- 
serve from  violation  the  sacred  principle  of  na- 
tionality? Is  it  to  maintain  intact  a  pure  and 
disinterested  neutrality  in  the  midst  of  a  warring 
world  ? 

Not  one  of  these  last  mentioned  considerations 


162     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

is  advanced  as  a  reason  for  this  consolidation  and 
immurement.  There  is  no  discussion  even  of 
the  possible  basis  of  pacific  readjustments,  no 
proposal  to  restore  autonomy  to  the  suppressed 
nationalities  in  the  German  and  Austro-Hungar- 
ian  realms,  no  thought  whatever  for  the  Poles, 
Czechs,  Rumanians,  and  others  already  immured 
within  these  empires,  no  reference  to  neutrality 
except  to  point  out  that  the  trench  policy  will 
render  it  more  difficult  for  the  small  states  to 
remain  neutral,  and  thus  will  tend  to  draw  them 
into  the  circle  of  the  Central  Powers.  It  is  as- 
sumed throughout  that  the  only  possible  bonds 
of  union  and  the  only  possible  conditions  of 
friendly  relationship  are  of  a  purely  mechanical 
nature.  The  little  states,  it  is  emphasized,  be- 
ing incapable  of  the  system  of  entrenchment  on 
account  of  its  cost  and  their  natural  environment, 
will  be  left  without  defense,  and  therefore  will 
constitute  available  raw  material  for  further 
economic  exploitation.  When  Central  Europe  is 
organized  and  fortified  those  states  that,  to  use 
Naumann's  words,  ''belong  neither  to  the  Anglo- 
French  Confederation  nor  to  the  Russian  Em- 
pire" are  to  fall  like  ripe  fruit,  without  effort 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     163 

or  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  new  imperial  union, 
into  its  outstretched  hands. 

With  almost  anxious  particularity  it  is  insisted 
that  no  such  thought  as  this  antedated  the  war 
either  at  Berlin  or  Vienna,  much  less  entered  into 
the  causation  of  it.  In  the  German  Empire,  it 
is  frankly  stated,  existed  the  thought  that  some- 
time there  must  come  an  accounting  with  Russia, 
and  also  that  sometime  there  must  be  a  fight  with 
England  concerning  sea  power.  These  eventuali- 
ties, he  admits,  were  already  prepared  for  in  the 
mind  of  the  German  Government  and  of  the 
German  people.  The  new  development  was  that 
there  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  rushed  together 
as  in  a  mighty  flood  the  war  with  Russia,  the 
war  with  France,  and  the  war  on  the  sea.  In 
the  war  with  France  and  the  war  on  the  sea  Aus- 
tria-Hungary had  no  part,  but  with  very  press- 
ing Balkan,  Slav,  and  Italian  perils.  Thus  two 
great  interests  unexpectedly  blended,  and  the 
three  wars  became  virtually  one.  Nevertheless, 
owing  to  this  duality  of  origin,  the  conflict  has 
had  a  different  aspect  as  seen  from  Vienna, 
Budapest,  and  Berlin.  At  first  the  idea  of  com- 
mon statehood  and  common  responsibility  in  all 


164     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

directions  was  wanting ;  but  the  war  has  generated 
it  and  has  proved  that  it  is  not  merely  a  German 
war  or  a  Danube  war,  but  the  historical  test  of 
Central  Europe. 

"The  war  unites  I"  exclaims  Naumann;  but 
he  comprehends  fully  what  contrarieties  are  to 
be  blended,  what  antagonisms  are  to  be  overcome 
if  Central  Europe  is  to  emerge  from  the  struggle 
as  a  political  unit.  He  acknowledges  that  Aus- 
tria-Hungary is  filled  with  particularism  and  the 
strife  of  partly  submerged  nationalities,  while 
Germany  is  a  new  unity  tending  toward  further 
centralization.  Germany,  from  a  loose  confed- 
eration, has  become  a  federal  state ;  Austria-Hun- 
gary is  a  confederacy  formed  of  independent,  but 
conventionally  united,  monarchies.  Germany,  it 
is  noted,  is  more  northern,  colder,  more  uniform, 
more  technical;  Austria-Hungary  more  southern, 
gayer,  more  temperamental,  more  romantic.  Ger- 
many is  for  the  most  part  Protestant,  Austria- 
Hungary  for  the  most  part  Catholic.  Austria- 
Hungary  possesses  more  of  the  past,  and  perhaps 
more  of  the  future,  but  Germany  more  of  the 
present.  The  rhythm  of  life  is  different.  It  is 
as  if  east  and  west,  north  and  south,  the  eighteenth 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     165 

century  and  the  twentieth  century  were  all  to  be 
melted  together. 

Whatever  the  contradictions  of  nature  or  in- 
clination, concludes  Naumann,  the  future  exist- 
ence of  the  two  empires  depends  upon  their  union. 
Neither  has  any  other  possible  ally  upon  whom 
it  can  with  confidence  depend.  Their  combina- 
tion is  therefore  a  reciprocal  necessity. 

Of  the  two,  the  Austro-Hungarian  Monarchy 
contains  the  greater  quantity  of  racial  diversi- 
ties and  nationalist  aspirations;  yet  this  may  not 
prove  a  cause  of  disruption,  for  union  with  a 
strong  power  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  these 
submerged  nationalities.  The  Czechs,  Morav- 
ians, Poles,  Serbs,  Croats  and  Slovaks,  and  even 
the  Magyars  alone,  would  be  too  feeble  to  main- 
tain their  national  independence  in  isolation. 
From  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  asserted,  their 
future  contentions  are  bound  to  be  in  the  sphere 
of  domestic  rather  than  in  that  of  foreign  poli- 
tics. Only  under  the  protection  and  by  the  in- 
dulgence of  their  alleged  oppressors  could  they 
indulge  in  patriotic  declamation.  Tolerance 
would  be  less  dangerous  and  perhaps  less  neces- 
sary in  the  projected  new  Central  Europe,  for 


166     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Prussian  advice  and,  if  needed,  Prussian  assist- 
ance, would  be  at  hand  to  complete  the  process  of 
absorption  and  assimilation.  Having  Prussian- 
ized Germany,  what  would  forbid  the  ultimate 
Prussianization  of  all  Central  Europe?  Are  not 
the  Prussians  themselves  of  Slavic  origin? 

There  is,  in  fact,  in  this  great  scheme  of  em- 
pire, an  almost  ostentatious  suppression  of 
Deutschland  ilher  Alles.  The  project  does  not 
disclose,  except  b}^  inference,  the  holy  mission  of 
German  Kultur  in  the  redemption  of  the  world. 
On  the  contrary,  there  is,  in  appearance  at  least, 
no  emphasis  of  nationality.  For  this  there  are 
obvious  reasons.  *'It  is,  of  course,  understood," 
says  Naumann,  "that  in  belligerent  Germany  all 
our  old  heroic  memories  rise  up  from  the  grave, 
and  we  behold  brought  before  us  the  Prussian 
King  Frederick  II,  Moltke,  and  Bismarck.  We 
struggle  as  Germans,  but  we  struggle  together 
with  millions  of  non-Germans,  who  are  prepared 
to  go  with  us  in  battle  and  in  death,  if  they  are 
respected  by  us,  and  if  they  are  permitted  to  be- 
lieve that  our  victory  is  at  the  same  time  their 
victory." 

It  is  chiefly  upon  this  belief  and  the  sense  of 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     167 

freely  acting  together  that  reliance  is  placed  for 
the  constitution  of  Central  Europe.  That  is  why 
a  political  union  is  deemed  possible  in  time  of 
war  that  would  be  utterly  impossible  in  a  time 
of  peace.  It  is  not  considered  as  at  all  an  affair 
of  chancelleries  or  parliaments.  It  could  not  be 
secured  by  merely  formal  treaties.  In  such  en- 
gagements there  is  always  too  little  or  too  much, 
and  there  is  and  can  be,  Naumann  thinks,  no  as- 
surance that  mere  treaties  will  always  be  respected. 
It  is  in  the  actual  identity  of  aim  and  aspiration 
of  peoples,  not  in  the  artificial  agreements  of 
cabinets,  that  a  true  bond  of  union  must  be 
sought.  ^'Security,"  he  says,  *'lies  in  the  many- 
sidedness  of  political,  economic,  and  personal  liv- 
ing together;  in  the  spontaneous  and  organized 
overflow  of  one  body  politic  into  the  other ;  in  the 
community  of  ideas,  of  history,  of  culture,  of 
labor,  of  conceptions  of  right, — of  a  thousand 
great  and  small  things.  Only  when  we  reach  this 
condition,  shall  we  be  firmly  bound  together." 

There  is  deep  insight  in  this  conception  of  the 
prerequisites  of  union.  Nothing  fruitful  can  be 
hoped  for  from  any  form  of  human  government  or 
from  any  political  and  especially  any  interna- 


168     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

tional  combination  that  is  not  founded  upon  the 
character,  the  interests,  and  the  aims  of  those 
affected  by  it.  It  is,  therefore,  timely  for  Aus- 
tro-Hungarians  to  consider  whether  a  union  that 
confessedly  could  be  conceived  only  in  a  time 
of  war  is  the  most  advantageous  for  the  dual  mon- 
archy in  a  time  of  peace. 

It  is  evident  that  Austria-Hungary  is  the  weak 
point  in  the  Pan-German  scheme  of  southeastern 
expansion.  Without  the  practical  subordination 
of  the  dual  monarchy  to  the  control  of  the  Im- 
perial German  Government  the  dream  of  a  Ham- 
burg-to-Bagdad  railroad,  with  German  ports  on 
all  the  southern  seas,  vanishes  into  thin  air.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  Naumann  has  written  his 
book,  for  he  comprehends  perfectly  that,  left  to 
themselves,  neither  Austria  nor  Hungary,  much 
less  the  latter,  can  be  easily  persuaded  to  regard 
the  scheme  of  union  which  he  urges  as  conform- 
able either  to  their  character,  their  interest,  or 
their  national  aims,  for  it  would  clearly  involve 
their  ultimate  extinction  as  separate  nations.  It 
is  doubtful  if  they  could  be  voluntarily  induced  to 
enter  into  so  close  a  partnership  with  so  predom- 
inant a  partner  as  the  Imperial  German  Govern- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     169 

ment.  Already  there  are  signs  of  restlessness  un- 
der existing  Prussian  control.  The  Austro-Hun- 
garian  response  to  the  project  of  a  Central  Eu- 
rope under  Prussian  headship  has  thus  far  not 
been  encouraging  to  Berlin.  For  this  reason,  in 
order  to  realize  the  Hamburg-to-Bagdad  hege- 
mony, with  the  control  which  this  involves,  the 
Imperial  German  Government  would,  no  doubt, 
gladly  free  its  hands  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing 
this  result  by  surrendering  for  the  present  every 
advantage  thus  far  obtained  in  the  west,  with  the 
intention  of  later  recovering  all  that  would  be 
temporarily  abandoned  in  France  and  Belgium. 

The  fate  not  only  of  Austria-Hungary  and  their 
submerged  nationalities,  but  that  of  Greece,  the 
Balkan  States,  the  Ottoman  Empire,  and  even 
that  of  Belgium,  Holland,  Switzerland,  and  the 
Scandinavian  kingdoms,  will  be  determined  by 
the  settlement  of  this  Mid-European  question. 
Once  organized,  as  German  science  and  skill 
could  organize  the  Central  Europe  that  Naumann 
has  delineated,  it  would  not  only  become  the  over- 
lord of  the  entire  European  continent,  but  the  most 
formidable  maritime  power  that  has  ever  existed. 

It  is  this  dream  of  dominating  Europe  that  has 


170     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

inspired  the  Imperial  German  Government,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  propose  negotiations  for  peace, 
and,  on  the  other,  vigorously  to  continue  the  war 
in  the  hope  that  one  or  another  of  its  opponents 
may  be  eliminated  from  the  conflict.  It  is  this 
also  that  furnishes  the  ground  for  the  hostility  to 
internationalism.  German  economic  imperial- 
ism is  as  little  inclined  as  the  Prussian  dynasty  to 
take  a  place  in  the  world  regulated  by  general 
agreements.  ^We  never  concealed  our  doubts 
that  peace  could  be  guaranteed  permanently  by 
international  organizations  such  as  arbitration 
courts,"  said  the  imperial  chancellor,  Bethmann- 
Hollweg,  in  speaking  to  a  committee  of  the  Reich- 
stag; and  his  attitude  on  this  subject  has  com- 
manded virtually  universal  assent  in  Germany. 

There  is  something  disconcerting  to  the  rest  of 
the  world  in  this  fierce  spirit  of  Teutonic  tribal- 
ism that  seems  not  even  to  desire  a  wider  friend- 
ship. The  disposition  to  reject  all  international 
relations,  the  dependence  on  mechanical,  eco- 
nomic, and  military  force,  and  the  total  absence 
of  the  humanism  which  characterized  the  old 
Germany  that  we  knew  and  loved — it  is  these 
things  that  render  this  transfigured  German  Em- 


TRANSFIGURATION  OF  EMPIRE     171 

pire  weird  and  strange  and  at  the  same  time  for- 
midable— ^like  a  giant  caveman,  dwelling  apart, 
toiling  in  his  waking  hours  in  preparation  for 
battle,  and  in  his  sleep  dreaming  of  enemies  and 
hostilities,  as  the  chief  preoccupations  of  exist- 
ence. 


CHAPTER  VI 
INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION 

NOTWITHSTANDING  the  German  dis- 
trust of  arbitration  courts,  Chancellor  von 
Bethmann-Hollweg  has  pointed  out  the  conclusion 
at  which  all  human  intelligence  must  arrive  when 
it  devotes  itself  to  a  serious  examination  of  in- 
ternational relations.     He  says: 

If  at  and  after  the  end  of  the  war  the  world  will  only 
become  fully  conscious  of  the  horrifying  destruction  of  life 
and  property,  then  through  the  whole  of  humanity  there 
will  ring  a  cry  for  peaceful  arrangements  and  under- 
standings which,  as  far  as  they  are  within  human  power, 
will  prevent  the  return  of  such  a  monstrous  catastrophe. 
This  cry  will  be  so  powerful  and  so  justified  that  it  must 
lead  to  some  result. 

What  then  is  that  result  to  be?  It  cannot  be 
the  domination  of  any  single  nation.  That  is  a 
form  of  peace  to  which  the  world  will  not  sub- 
mit. 

172 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     173 

If  men  were  ruled  by  pure  intelligence,  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  make  a  permanent  end  of  war 
and  its  devastations;  but  experience  has  shown 
that  neither  those  who  govern  nor  those  who  are 
governed  are  purely  intellectual  beings.  There 
is  in  the  nature  of  every  man,  and  hence  in  the 
composition  of  every  nation,  an  element  of  rea- 
son; but  there  are  also  instincts,  emotions,  and 
passions.  Some  of  these  arise  from  the  limita- 
tions and  necessities  of  nature  as  a  complex  of 
active  forces  governed  by  the  great  laws  of  strug- 
gle, selection,  and  survival.  In  addition  to  these 
there  are  also  fortuitous  associations  of  ideas, 
tribal  traditions,  and  inherent  prejudices  that 
have  their  origin  outside  the  sphere  of  conscious 
mental  processes.  Nations  as  well  as  men  have 
their  inheritance  of  natural  traits  which  assimi- 
late them  to  different  species  of  animals,  such  as 
the  wolf,  the  fox,  and  the  lamb.  In  consequence, 
the  probable  conduct  of  certain  races  of  men  may 
be  made  the  subject  of  calculation  almost  as  cer- 
tain as  that  resulting  from  the  study  of  the  in- 
stinctive life  of  birds  and  beasts  upon  which  su- 
perior intelligence  bases  its  powers  of  capture 
and  control. 


174     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

In  the  seclusion  of  their  studies,  philosophers, 
beginning  with  a  few  a  priori  principles  of  rea- 
son, find  it  an  easy  task  to  construct  in  their  minds 
a  universal  state,  or  so  to  conceive  the  relations 
of  separate  states  to  one  another  as  to  conclude 
that  nothing  is  simpler  than  to  realize  an  ulti- 
mate federation  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary, 
those  who  have  been  close  observers  of  human 
nature  and  especially  those  who  have  come  in 
contact  with  many  varied  populations  in  many 
different  countries  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that 
either  a  universal  state  or  a  perfect  harmony  of  all 
separate  states  will  ever  be  possible  unless  human 
nature  is  radically  changed.  They  perceive  the 
fatalities  in  national  existence  which  prevent  the 
triumph  of  international  ideals,  and  they  wonder 
how  other  men  of  great  intelligence  can  fancy 
that  a  plan  of  cooperation  is,  in  effect,  almost  ac- 
complished simply  because  it  has  been  consistently 
and  logically  thought  out. 

As  a  result  of  the  present  European  conflict 
and  its  revelation  of  national  aims  and  purposes, 
there  will,  no  doubt,  be  urged  upon  all  nations  a 
deeper  consideration  of  the  causes  of  international 
strife,  and  elaborate  plans  will  be  proposed  for 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     175 

securing  more  perfect  international  harmony. 
Unquestionably  the  moral  sense  of  all  intelligent 
men  will  be  profoundly  stirred,  and  the  iniquity 
as  well  as  the  irrationality  of  war  between  civil- 
ized nations  will  be  deeply  impressed  upon  them. 
But  this  will  not  be  a  new  experience.  In  mod- 
ern times  the  atrocities  accompanying  great  wars 
have  never  failed  to  call  forth  projects  for  a  thor- 
oughgoing reorganization  of  the  world.  Thus  it 
was  that  in  the  midst  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War, 
Emeric  Cruce  proposed  that  Venice  be  chosen  as 
the  permanent  seat  of  a  corps  of  ambassadors 
whose  votes  should  settle  all  international  differ- 
ences. It  was  during  the  "Robber  Wars"  of 
Louis  XIV  that  William  Penn,  whom  Montes- 
quieu called  "the  modern  Lycurgus,"  propounded 
his  plans  for  universal  peace.  It  was  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  struggle  for  the  Spanish  succession 
that  Fenelon  presented  to  the  Congress  of  Utrecht 
his  famous  dissertation,  in  which  he  said : 

Neighboring  states  are  not  only  under  obligation  to  treat 
one  another  according  to  the  rules  of  justice  and  good 
faith;  they  ought  in  addition,  for  their  own  safety,  as 
well  as  for  the  common  interest,  to  form  a  kind  of  general 
society  and  republic. 


176     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

It  was  upon  the  same  occasion  that  the  Abbe 
de  Saint-Pierre  elaborated  his  extension  of  Sully's 
alleged  "Grand  Design,"  in  which — anticipating 
the  purpose  of  the  present  program  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace — he  proposed  not  only  the  sub- 
mission of  differences  to  judicial  decision,  but  the 
total  abolition  of  the  separate  use  of  force,  and 
the  agreement  that  in  case  of  a  refusal  to  observe 
treaties  or  to  obey  rules  and  judgments  imposed 
the  other  members  of  the  alliance  should  compel  a 
refractory  sovereign  to  comply  by  arming  unitedly 
against  him  and  charging  to  his  account  the  ex- 
pense of  this  forcible  constraint.  It  was  during 
Napoleon  Bonaparte's  conquest  of  Italy  that  Im- 
manuel  Kant  published  his  famous  essay  on 
^'Eternal  Peace." 

It  would  be  tedious  to  examine  or  even  to  re- 
state the  numerous  schemes  that  have  been  pro- 
posed for  insuring  peace  and  harmony  among  the 
nations.  Almost  without  exception  they  have  as- 
sumed that  the  basis  of  reorganization  is  exclu- 
sively political,  and  that  there  must  therefore  be 
instituted  what  is  equivalent  to  a  superstate,  a 
new  sovereignty  set  above  the  national  state  as 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     177 

this  is  set  over  its  constituent  members.  For  this 
purpose  it  has  been  considered  by  many  necessary 
to  establish  not  only  an  international  legislature 
and  an  international  judiciary,  but  also  an  in- 
ternational executive  in  command  of  armies  and 
navies  or  at  least  controlling  such  an  armed  force 
as  would  constitute  an  effective  international 
police,  but  generally  without  a  very  clear  notion  of 
what  its  extent  would  have  to  be. 

It  is  advisable  to  dismiss  at  the  outset  such  a 
futility  as  this  superstate  would  be.  A  universal 
world  state  of  this  description  would  imply  the 
sudden  annihilation  of  all  the  national  charac- 
teristics that  differentiate,  for  example,  Turkey 
from  Switzerland,  or  France  from  the  German 
Empire.  The  proposal  to  federate  such  dispar- 
ate political  units  would  invoke  prompt  resist- 
ance on  every  hand. 

Only  approximately  identical  types  of  govern- 
ment are  eligible  for  any  real  international  or- 
ganization, which  in  order  to  constitute  an  organ- 
ism must  be  composed  of  mutually  adaptable 
organs.  In  brief,  the  component  parts  must  be 
expressions  of  a  common  life.  Absolute  and  con- 
stitutional states  do  not  belong  to  the  same  species 


178     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

of  bodies  politic.     There  is  between  them  an  in- 
herent hostility.     An  attempt  to  unite  them  in  a 
league  to  enforce  peace  would  result  in  generating 
new  causes  of  war.     This  attempt  has  already 
been  made,  and  it  ended  in  dismal  failure.     The 
Holy  Alliance  was  organized  to  sustain  the  high- 
est international  ideals  of  the  signatory  powers, 
having  *'No  other  object  than  to  publish,  in  the 
face  of  the  whole  world,  their  fixed  resolution, 
both  in  the  administration  of  their  respective 
States,  and  in  their  political  relations  with  every 
other  Government,  to  take  for  their  sole  guide  the 
precepts  of  the  holy  religion  our  Saviour  teaches, 
namely  the  precepts  of  Justice,  Christian  Charity, 
and  Peace.''     Yet  Great  Britain  and  France  could 
not  enter  into  this  alliance,  which  had  for  its 
real  object  to  secure  tranquillity  by  crushing  out 
all  movements  toward  national  independence  and 
constitutional  development.     As  Alison  Phillips 
has  clearly  shown  in  his  work  on  "The  Confedera- 
tion of  Europe,"  "the  effective  working  of  an  in- 
ternational federal  system  demands  a  far  greater 
uniformity   of   political   institutions    and    ideas 
among  the  nations  of  the  world  than  at  present 
exists." 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     179 

The  fundamental  difference  between  states,  as 
has  already  been  pointed  out,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
conception  of  sovereignty.  In  the  case  of  the  con- 
stitutional states  there  has  been  a  limitation  of 
the  power  of  the  sovereign,  and  in  the  great  democ- 
racies there  has  been  some  modification  in  the 
conception  of  sovereignty  itself.  In  the  United 
States,  for  example,  there  has  been  much  dispute 
regarding  the  question  whether  sovereignty  be- 
longs to  the  Federal  Government  or  to  the  sepa- 
rate States.  The  truth  is  that  in  its  absolute 
sense  of  unlimited  power  it  belongs  to  neither, 
not  even  to  the  people,  whose  expressed  convic- 
tions on  the  subject  constitute  a  declaration  that 
government  exists  only  "to  secure  the  rights  of 
the  governed,"  and  is  therefore  essentially  limited. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  of  all  the  bills  of  rights,  in  which 
the  idea  of  sovereignty  has  no  explicit  recogni- 
tion; and  this  word,  which  the  American  system 
would  never  have  invented,  has  been  made  the 
subject  of  extended  discussion  with  the  result 
that  while  some  authority  is  seen  to  belong  to 
the  Federal  Government  and  some  to  the  state 
governments,  their  relation  is  one  of  coordination 


180     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

and  not  one  of  unqualified  and  absolute  su- 
premacy. In  international  affairs  it  has  never 
been  seriously  pretended  that  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  in  any  respect  exceeds  what,  as  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  expresses  it,  "in- 
dependent States  may  of  right  do.'' 

It  is  evident  that  autocratic  powers,  basing  their 
authority  upon  the  postulates  of  absolutism,  will 
not  and  logically  cannot  accept  this  view  of  es- 
sentially limited  state  authority  and  the  conse- 
quent existence  of  inherent  and  binding  interna- 
tional obligations,  for  the  reason  that  these  limi- 
tations and  obligations  are  from  their  point  of 
view  encroachments  upon  the  unlimited  will  of 
the  sovereign. 

It  may  be  s^id  that  these  limitations  and  ob- 
ligations cease  to  be  encroachments  when  they 
are  freely  and  explicitly  accepted  by  the  sover- 
eign, and  that,  therefore,  obligations,  when  thus 
accepted,  are  as  binding  between  absolute  govern- 
ments as  between  constitutional  governments. 
But  this  observation  evades  the  fundamental  is- 
sue which  is  whether  there  are  any  obligations 
growing  out  of  the  essential  nature  of  the  state 
that  should  control  the  relations  and  conduct  of 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     181 

sovereign  states  that  they  may  not  by  an  arbitrary 
act  of  will  reject;  for  if  there  are  obligations  that 
are  inherently  binding  between  them  because  of 
the  nature  of  the  state,  a  state,  though  sovereign, 
cannot  be  free  to  reject  them;  but  if,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  the  absolutist  theory  of  the  state  con- 
tends, the  sovereignty  of  the  state  is  unlimited, 
such  a  state  is  bound  only  by  its  will,  which  is 
casual  and  changeable.  Its  will  to  reject  an 
obligation  is  as  absolute  as  its  will  to  accept 
it. 

It  is,  therefore,  only  through  a  modification  of 
the  idea  of  absolute  sovereignty  that  any  hope  can 
be  found  for  the  permanent  and  pacific  organi- 
zation of  mankind.  Unless  we  start  out  with  the 
postulate  that  the  state  is  founded  upon  the  in- 
herent rights  of  its  citizens,  and  therefore  reaches 
its  limits  of  authority  where  their  collective  rights 
of  safety  and  possession  end,  we  shall  have  no 
constructive  principle  upon  which  to  base  a  better 
organization  of  the  world.  The  right  of  arbi- 
trary aggressive  force  once  admitted,  no  matter 
how  noble  and  elevated  its  aims  may  be,  im- 
perialism has  triumphed;  and,  if  imperialism  is 


182     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

to  triumph,  it  will  create  its  own  rules  of  action  in 
defiance  of  international  law. 

As  the  basis  of  any  practicable  scheme  of  world 
organization,  it  is  necessary  to  lay  down  the  post- 
ulate that  every  free  community  of  men  may  form 
a  government  for  the  protection  of  their  inher- 
ent rights.  But  this  fundamental  political  right, 
which  we  call  by  the  ambiguous  name  ''sover- 
eignty" is  by  no  means  an  unlimited  right.  It  is 
necessarily  limited  by  the  similar  right  of  other 
coexistent  communities;  and  from  the  constitu- 
tional point  of  view  it  is  further  limited  by  the 
fact  that  there  are  inherent  personal  rights  which 
no  government  may  justly  take  away. 

It  is,  therefore,  utterly  useless  to  expect  that 
any  plan  of  international  government  that  will 
be  really  effective  can  be  successfully  carried  into 
practice  with  governments  that  adhere  to  the  ab- 
solute conception  of  sovereignty.  No  treaty  can 
bind  them,  for  they  always  reserve  the  right  to 
break  it  whenever  they  consider  it  in  their  interest 
to  do  so.  No  international  law  can  control 
them,  for  they  will  not  admit  that  it  is  law  unless 
it  is  an  absolute  decree  of  sovereign  power.  No 
congress  or  conference  can  overrule  them,   for 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     183 

these,  in  their  view,  possess  no  authority.  All 
contractual  relations  entered  into  with  powers 
which  hold  themselves  not  subject  to  moral  law 
are  therefore  written  in  running  water.  They 
have  no  value  whatever.  What  can  be  expected 
of  a  power  that  claims  to  possess  an  unlimited 
right  of  national  expansion,  restrained  only  by 
the  extent  of  its  ability  to  carry  its  projects  into 
execution  by  an  assault  upon  its  neighbors  ?  The 
polite  expression  for  this  exalted  privilege  is  * 'lib- 
erty of  national  evolution."  But  what  does  lib- 
erty of  national  evolution  mean  if  not  freedom  to 
do  what  a  particular  nation  desires  to  do  with- 
out the  restraint  of  the  collective  interests  of  other 
powers  and  the  limitations  imposed  by  fixed  prin- 
ciples of  law? 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  any  effective  form  of 
international  government  implies  the  renuncia- 
tion, to  some  extent  at  least,  of  absolute  sover- 
eignty. To  what  extent  must  this  renunciation 
be  carried?  Certainly  not  to  the  extent  of  ad- 
mitting interference  in  the  purely  domestic  affairs 
of  a  state.  But  it  must  be  accepted  to  a  degree 
that  will  allow  of  bringing  to  bear  upon  the  im- 
portant relations  of  states  to  one  another, — that 


184     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

is,  upon  strictly  international  questions, — the  col- 
lective judgment  of  at  least  a  group  of  states  hav- 
ing an  interest  in  those  questions. 

Here,  undoubtedly,  have  to  be  made  two  dis- 
criminations:  (1)  between  questions  which  are 
strictly  internal  to  the  separate  states  and  strictly 
international  questions;  and  (2)  between  the 
powers  capable  of  uniting  together  upon  terms  of 
equality  for  the  consideration  of  questions  purely 
international  and  those  that  will  not  submit  to  a 
collective  decision. 

It  may  often  be  difficult  to  distinguish  between 
what  is  merely  domestic  and  what  is  properly 
speaking  international  in  the  action  of  sovereign 
powers.  The  great  powers  have  in  the  past  not 
hesitated  to  interfere  in  matters  of  a  wholly  do- 
mestic character  in  the  case  of  the  weaker  states, 
as,  for  example,  with  administrative  reforms  in 
Turkey,  and  with  customs  tariffs  in  China. 
Such  interference  is  beyond  question  an  infringe- 
ment upon  sovereignty.  It  can  be  justified  only 
when  it  is  intended  to  suppress  a  domestic  condi- 
tion that  unjustly  affects  the  rights  of  foreign 
powers,  such  as  a  state  of  anarchy,  inhuman  bar- 
barity, or  a  persistent  form  of  maladministration. 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     185 

When,  on  the  other  hand,  it  aims  at  extorting  a 
commercial  advantage,  it  has  no  justification.  It 
is  natural,  therefore,  that  small  and  weak  states, 
feeling  themselves  liable  to  such  abuses  by 
stronger  powers,  should  dread  any  form  of  inter- 
national control  that  might  unjustly  infringe  upon 
their  sovereignty.  It  would  be  necessary,  there- 
fore, in  framing  an  international  constitution  in- 
tended as  the  legal  authorization  of  an  interna- 
tional government,  to  mark  out  very  clearly  the 
limits  within  which  it  could  act,  and  thus  to  pro- 
tect the  weaker  states  from  the  intervention  of 
the  stronger. 

It  is  evident,  also,  that  the  formation  of  a  gen- 
eral union  for  purposes  of  legislation,  judicial 
judgment,  and  executive  action  would  involve 
grave  problems.  While  all  independent  states, 
regardless  of  size  and  power,  are  in  law  juristi- 
cally  equal,  they  are  not  materially  equal  either 
in  a  military  or  an  economic  sense.  If,  there- 
fore, representation  in  international  bodies — ^leg- 
islative, judicial,  and  executive — ^were  equal,  it 
would  involve  a  certain  subjection  of  the  great 
powers  to  the  will  of  the  small  states  to  which 
they  would  not  willingly  submit.     If,  on  the  other 


186     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

hand,  representation  were  proportioned  to  wealth, 
population,  extent  of  territory,  or  any  other  simi- 
lar standard,  the  smaller  states  would  feel  that 
they  were  in  danger  of  being  subordinated  by 
their  more  powerful  neighbors.  Finally,  there 
would  be  an  inherent  incompatibility  between  the 
absolute  and  the  constitutional  powers,  the  for- 
mer being  indisposed  to  bind  themselves  to  the  re- 
strictions that  would  necessarily  be  placed  upon 
them  by  general  principles  of  law,  and  the  latter 
being  uncertain  whether  or  not  they  could  depend 
upon  the  good  faith  of  powers  whose  political 
systems  were  in  principle  opposed  to  any  external 
restraints — restraints  which  at  a  critical  moment 
they  might  in  perfect  consistency  with  their  abso- 
lute theory  of  the  state  suddenly  decide  to  re- 
nounce. 

We  are  brought,  therefore,  boldly  to  dismiss 
the  pretension  that  a  general  international  gov- 
ernment is  either  possible  or  desirable.  Such  an 
organization  would  of  necessity  include  both  great 
and  small  states,  empires  and  democracies,  pow- 
ers with  unsatisfied  world-wide  ambitions  and 
petty  sovereignties  just  emerging  from  semi-bar- 
barism, and  among  them  aspirants  to  nationality 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     187 

virtually  only  on  the  ragged  edge  of  statehood, 
yet  claiming  the  right  to  possess  an  equal  voice  in 
an  international  body,  but  in  reality  the  mere 
vassals  or  protectorates  of  great  powers. 

Would  it  not,  in  fact,  appear  that  the  most  that 
could  reasonably  be  expected  in  the  form  of  an 
international  organization  fit  to  legislate  and  ex- 
ercise judicial  functions  would,  at  least  in  the 
beginning,  be  a  strong,  but  limited,  group  of 
powers,  each  willing  to  sacrifice  something  of  its 
own  sovereignty  for  the  purpose  of  insuring  peace 
and  equity,  thus  constituting  a  coherent  force,  not 
upon  the  principle  of  the  balance  of  power,  but  a 
nucleus  for  the  ultimate  union  of  all  responsible 
and  socially  inclined  nations?  This,  of  course, 
would  have  to  be  sufficiently  powerful  to  defend 
its  members  from  attack  and  even  able  to  offer 
protection  to  the  independence  of  the  smaller 
states  desirous  of  entering  into  its  compact.  It 
would  not  necessarily  be  a  federation,  which 
would  imply  the  creation  of  a  new  state,  nor  even 
an  alliance.  It  might  be  in  substance  merely  the 
formal  recognition  of  the  existence  of  a  real,  as 
distinguished  from  a  purely  fictitious,  society  of 
states  based  upon  common  intentions  and  a  dec- 


188     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

laration  of  definite  principles  of  right  which  the 
members  were  willing  to  accept,  to  observe,  and 
to  defend. 

Such  a  society  of  states  as  has  just  been  out- 
lined would,  however,  itself  be  a  mere  fiction  of 
the  mind  unless  it  possessed  some  kind  of  legis- 
lative, judicial,  and  executive  powers*  But  it  is 
quite  possible  that  a  society  of  states  should  in 
some  degree  possess  such  powers  without  in  real- 
ity constituting  a  new  state.  The  establishment 
of  new  relations  is  not  equivalent  to  the  creation 
of  a  new  entity,  and  it  is  merely  the  establishment 
of  new  relations  that  is  here  contemplated. 
There  would  be  no  new  sovereignty  developed, 
but  merely  the  concurrent  action  of  preexistent 
sovereignties.  For  constitutional  states  there  is 
virtually  no  surrender  of  sovereign  authority  in 
submitting  to  international  law,  because,  being 
themselves  constituted  for  justice  as  the  end  of 
their  existence,  international  law  contradicts  noth- 
ing essential  to  them.  For  an  absolutist  state, 
however,  the  case  is  different.  Pretending  to 
possess  unlimited  authority  and  finding  the  end 
of  its  existence  in  augmenting  its  own  power,  the 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     189 

absolutist  state  does  not  regard  itself  as  under  ob- 
ligation to  accept  any  law  that  is  not  the  declara- 
tion of  its  own  will. 

Here  is  the  explanation  of  why  the  Hague  con- 
ferences of  1889  and  1907  were  nearly  fruitless 
as  legislative  bodies.  They  were,  however,  gen- 
erally regarded  as  law-making  assemblies,  sub- 
ject, of  course,  to  veto  by  the  refusal  of  the  sepa- 
rate states  to  ratify  their  conclusions.  In  the 
first  conference  twenty-six  states,  and  in  the  sec- 
ond conference  forty-four — these  being  all  but 
four  of  the  independent  states  of  the  entire  world 
— united  in  making  conventions  intended  to  have 
a  universal  and  legal  character,  but  these  were  of 
an  extremely  limited  nature  because  in  both  cases 
the  range  of  subjects  was  restricted  by  previous 
agreement,  entire  unanimity  was  necessary  in  or- 
der to  secure  adoption  of  each  separate  item  by 
the  conference,  and  the  conventions  that  had 
braved  and  triumphed  over  all  these  discourage- 
ments were  still  null  and  void  for  all  the  powers 
that  did  not  expressly  ratify  them.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,  that  the  results  were  meager. 

While  these  conferences  prove  that  interna- 
tional legislation  is  possible  by  an  association  of 


190     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

sovereign  powers,  they  also  make  evident  what 
is  necessary  to  render  it  really  fruitful.  The 
first  necessity  is  that  strict  unanimity  must  be 
given  up,  and  the  nations  must  admit  their  ob- 
ligation to  obey  such  international  rules  as  re- 
ceive preponderant  assent,  not  perhaps  the  assent 
of  a  bare  majority,  but  of  a  very  large  plurality. 
This  the  absolutist  governments  will  not  do,  for 
they  will  accept  no  rule  which  involves  any  dis- 
advantage to  themselves,  no  matter  how  just  it 
may  be.  A  constitutional  state,  on  the  other 
hand,  may  accept  any  just  rule  without  surrender- 
ing any  of  its  sovereign  rights,  for  it  claims  no 
rights  which  just  legislation  would  endanger. 

The  primary  problem  therefore  is  how  to  or- 
ganize an  international  conference,  assembled  to 
perfect  international  law,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
prevent  unjust  or  ex  parte  legislation.  The  only 
practicable  method,  perhaps,  is,  first  of  all,  by 
negotiation  between  powers  disposed  to  partici- 
pate in  such  a  conference  and  to  be  bound  by  it 
to  frame  a  constitution  defining  and  limiting  its 
powers,  and,  since  the  procedure  must  of  neces- 
sity be  experimental,  to  provide  for  its  subse- 
quent amendment,  except  as  respects  certain  defi- 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     191 

nite  and  essential  rights  explicitly  and  per- 
manently reserved  to  the  states  taking  part  in  it. 
Such  a  conference,  for  reasons  already  stated, 
would  not  be  universal.  At  The  Hague  it  was 
esteemed  necessary  that  an  international  confer- 
ence should  be  universal,  and  this  was  the  reason 
for  requiring  absolute  unanimity  and  for  the  con- 
sequent dread  of  isolating  one  or  more  of  the 
powers,  which,  therefore,  were  able  to  hold  up  the 
conference  on  every  vital  question  and  thus  pre- 
vent the  adoption  of  the  measures  most  necessary 
to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  world. 

While  unanimity  is  most  desirable,  it  is  ab- 
surd to  insist  that  some  one  recalcitrant  power, 
even  though  a  great  one,  may  virtually  frustrate 
the  labors  of  all  the  rest.  Such  a  decision  not 
only  forestalls  the  possibility  of  reaching  a  con- 
clusion upon  any  really  vital  matter,  but  it  pre- 
vents even  the  discussion  of  the  subjects  most 
needing  to  be  considered.  At  the  termination  of 
the  second  conference  at  The  Hague,  after  four 
months  of  tuition  in  the  gentle  art  of  arriving  at 
no  conclusion  under  past-masters  in  obstructive 
diplomacy,  many  of  the  most  thoughtful  of  the 
delegates  were  of  the  opinion  that  another  con- 


192     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

ference  to  be  held  under  the  same  conditions 
would  be  a  waste  of  energy. 

What  then  should  be  the  competency  of  an  in- 
ternational conference?  What  authority  may 
safely  and  wisely  be  attributed  to  it?  In  other 
words,  how  far  may  an  independent  nation  sub- 
mit to  the  collective  decisions  of  such  a  body? 

Reserving  its  political  independence  and  its 
territorial  integrity  in  the  mandate  constituting 
such  a  conference,  supposing  the  conference  to 
be  composed  exclusively  of  constitutional  states, 
why  should  it  not  submit  to  any  decisions  in  the 
nature  of  general  laws  which  after  full  discussion 
the  large  majority  is  willing  to  accept  and  agrees 
to  observe? 

Here  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter  of  in- 
ternational organization.  If  everything  is  to  re- 
main entirely  voluntary,  such  organization  is  use- 
less. If,  on  the  contrary,  everything  is  compul- 
sory, that  makes  an  end  of  state  independence 
and  transfers  sovereignty  altogether  to  a  central 
body. 

The  key  to  the  problem  is  to  be  found  in  the 
expression  "decisions  in  the  nature  of  general 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     193 

laws."  There  is  no  reason  why  such  decisions, 
made  under  constitutional  limitations,  should  not 
be  freely  accepted  as  binding.  It  is  the  only  way 
in  which  the  rules  of  international  law  can  be 
brought  to  any  high  degree  of  perfection;  and  it 
is  the  perfection  of  these  rules — that  is,  their  ap- 
proximation to  principles  of  justice — that  alone 
can  furnish  a  basis  for  the  normal  life  of  a  so- 
ciety of  states. 

Given  an  acceptable  body  of  law,  the  necessary 
machinery  of  international  government  is  re- 
duced to  extreme  simplicity.  Next  comes  the 
need  of  judicial  decision.  The  reluctance  of  con- 
stitutional governments  to  submit  their  disputes 
to  arbitration  does  not  proceed  from  a  desire  to 
act  unjustly.  It  arises  rather  from  the  conviction 
that  in  the  absence  of  fixed  standards  of  judg- 
ment decisions  will  be  reached  which  are  purely 
arbitrary — ^mere  attempts  to  settle  the  dispute  by 
makeshift  compromises  that  do  not  embody  jus- 
tice to  any  one.  Where  the  law  is  clear,  there  is 
little  difficulty  in  inducing  responsible  govern- 
ments to  submit  to  an  international  tribunal  dis- 
putes which,  to  use  the  technical  word,  are  "jus- 
ticiable," that  is,  which  are  of  a  legal  character. 


194     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

But  it  is  obvious  that  the  reason  why  so  many 
international  questions  are  not  of  a  legal  char- 
acter is  simply  because  the  law  is  so  incomplete, 
so  imperfect,  or  customs  are  so  contradictory, 
that  there  is  no  legal  basis  of  settlement,  since 
there  is  virtually  no  clear  law  upon  the  subject. 

The  remedy  here  is  quite  simple.  It  consists 
in  perfecting  the  law;  and  the  law  can  be  per- 
fected only  by  discussion  and  decision  in  an  in- 
ternational conference,  the  members  of  which  are 
willing  to  accept  one  another's  bona  fides,  and 
respect  the  clear,  deliberate,  and  preponderant  col- 
lective judgment  of  the  delegates. 

It  is  true  that  difficulties  have  been  raised  re- 
garding the  formation  of  an  international  ju- 
diciary, but  the  chief  of  these  has  grown  out  of 
the  idea  that  such  a  tribunal  must  have  a  uni- 
versal character;  that  is,  that  every  state  must 
have  a  representative  on  the  international  bench. 
A  court  composed  of  forty-four  judges  would  be 
in  every  way  impracticable.  But  it  is  altogether 
unnecessary.  The  assumption  that  every  state 
must  be  represented  on  the  bench  is  based  upon 
the  idea  that  every  state  must  sit  in  its  own  case, 
which  is  absurd.     This  idea  grows  wholly  out 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     195 

of  the  vagueness  and  imperfection  of  the  law, 
which  involves  the  reference  of  a  dispute  to  the 
private  judgment  of  a  jurist  who  may  be  in- 
fluenced by  his  national  prejudices  in  making  his 
decision.  But  when  the  law  is  clear  and  com- 
plete, the  decision  is  greatly  simplified.  It  then 
becomes  merely  an  ascertainment  of  facts  which 
must  rest  on  sufficient  evidence,  and  an  applica- 
tion of  the  law  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
National  prejudice,  under  these  conditions,  is 
virtually  excluded;  and  where  the  law  is  per- 
fectly clear  the  requirements  of  a  good  interna- 
tional judge  are  simply  common  honesty  and 
clear  intelligence,  which  happily  are  not  national 
monopolies  and  are  not  impossible  to  find. 

As  to  the  form  or  constitution  of  the  court,  that 
is  a  matter  of  much  less  consequence  than  is 
ordinarily  supposed.  The  important  thing  is 
that  there  should  be  some  competent  court  avail- 
able; for  ordinary  cases,  perhaps,  a  small  per- 
manent tribunal  of  expert  jurists  always  open 
to  hearings,  and  for  special  and  delicate  con- 
troversies specifically  chosen  judges  selected  ad 
hoc  by  the  contestants. 

When  we  come  to  the  enforcement  of  judicial 


196     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

decisions,  other  difficulties  present  themselves,  but 
most  of  them  are  imaginary,  at  least  as  far  as 
constitutional  states  are  concerned,  for  these  are 
habituated  to  accepting  without  hesitation  the 
decisions  of  properly  constituted  courts.  As  for 
absolutist  governments,— governments  based  on 
force  and  not  on  law, — they  are  by  definition  left 
out  of  the  society  of  states  as  here  conceived. 
There  would  be  the  same  danger  in  including 
them  in  it  that  there  would  be  in  inviting  a  band 
of  highway  robbers  to  form  part  of  a  protec- 
tive constabulary  to  secure  the  safety  of  prop- 
erty. 

The  natural  consequence  of  refusing  to  respect 
the  decision  of  an  accepted  international  judicial 
tribunal  would  be,  that  a  state  thus  refusing 
would  henceforth  be  considered  an  international 
outlaw,  and  might  properly  be  treated  as  such. 

How  far  military  power  should  be  employed 
in  the  enforcement  of  international  obligations  is 
a  matter  for  grave  consideration.  The  use  of 
military  force  means  war,  and  the  question  there- 
fore becomes.  For  what  purposes  should  nations 
be  prepared  to  go  to  war  ?  Certainly  not  for  any 
objects  that  can  be  peaceably  obtained  without 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     197 

the  sacrifice  of  essential  rights.  Certainly  not  for 
any  such  abstract  idea  as  peace,  apart  from  any 
known  or  concrete  circumstances.  No  wise  na- 
tion, therefore,  will  enter  into  any  general  com- 
pact to  "enforce  peace,''  which  in  view  of  actual 
facts  might  bind  it  to  the  most  odious  obligations 
against  its  own  judgment  and  conscience.  Such 
an  agreement  would,  moreover,  bind  itself  and 
its  cosignatories  by  a  solemn  compact  to  preserve 
the  status  quo,  for  a  time  at  least,  in  every  unjust 
situation.  Nor  is  there  less  danger  in  the  en- 
forcement of  delay,  which  might  produce  worse 
consequences  than  prompt  action.  But  there 
might,  with  very  good  reason,  be  an  international 
declaration  of  what  should  constitute  just  and 
unjust  causes  of  war,  which  would  serve  as  a 
warning  to  unjust  aggressors  as  to  where  the  sym- 
pathies of  neutrals  would  be  placed  in  case  the 
rules  were  violated.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
prudent  statesmen  will  ever  unite  in  an  engage- 
ment to  go  to  war  under  circumstances  wholly 
unknown  to  them,  and  not  affecting  the  direct  in- 
terests of  the  powers  they  represent  or  their  specific 
obligations  toward  their  neighbors  or  allies.  In- 
ternational morality  will  find  its  best  field  of  de- 


198     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

velopment  in  conditions  that  leave  the  nations  free 
to  exercise  in  such  matters  their  reason  and  their 
consciences  in  the  light  of  the  actual  conditions 
by  which  they  may  be  surrounded. 

There  remain,  of  course,  many  international 
questions  that  cannot  be  reduced  to  formulae  of 
international  law,  or  submitted  to  the  decision  of 
judicial  tribunals.  These  are  the  questions  of 
national  policy  which  every  nation  must  reserve 
for  its  own  determination.  What  means  each  na- 
tion shall  take  for  its  own  defense,  whether  on 
land  or  sea,  must  be  left  to  its  own  decision,  as 
well  as  where  to  find  its  friends  and  whom  to 
consider  as  its  enemies. 

But  this  reserve  of  national  independence  by 
no  means  excludes  international  relations  outside 
of  those  which  relate  to  the  determination  and  en- 
forcement of  international  law.  There  is  a  wide 
field  for  friendly  social  intercourse,  for  mutual 
counsel,  for  an  exchange  of  views,  and  for  the 
exercise  of  those  influences  which  promote  con- 
fidence and  consolidate  friendship.  This  is  the 
work  of  diplomacy  which  will  find  its  task  greatly 
lightened,  but  not  in  any  sense  superseded,  by 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     199 

the  perfection  of  international  law,  and  the  re- 
sort to  international  tribunals. 

Diplomacy,  rightly  considered,  is  a  creative 
function.  It  clears  the  way  for  better  under- 
standings and  closer  relationships.  The  nations 
are  constantly  making  a  new  world.  New  needs 
and  new  inventions  are  incessantly  preparing  the 
way  for  new  international  contacts.  There  is 
no  longer  a  possibility  of  isolation.  There  can 
be  in  modern  times  no  hermit  nation.  Trade  is 
breaking  down  the  old  barriers,  and  the  multipli- 
cation of  new  desires,  even  among  semi-barbar- 
ous peoples,  is  opening  new  ports  and  develop- 
ing new  markets. 

The  whole  world  is  now  compelled  to  think  and 
to  act  internationally.  The  public  is  hardly 
aware  of  what  was  accomplished  in  the  last  cen- 
tury in  the  way  of  organizing  specific  interna- 
tional relationships  by  the  creation  of  such  or- 
ganisms as  the  Universal  Postal  Union,  the  Tele- 
graphic Union,  the  Radio-Telegraphic  Union,  the 
Metric  Union,  the  Geodetic  Association,  and  half 
a  dozen  other  permanent  quasi-legislative  or  ad- 
ministrative associations  of  an  international  char- 
acter.    There  are,  besides,  many  periodic  con- 


200     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

ferences  relating  to  industrial  property,  literary 
and  artistic  property,  railway  and  oceanic  trans- 
portation, safety  at  sea,  sanitation,  the  use  and 
sale  of  drugs  and  intoxicants,  commercial  statis- 
tics, monetary  affairs,  and  other  matters  of  gen- 
eral human  interest.  To  these  must  be  added 
the  permanent  commissions  such  as  the  Bureau  of 
The  Hague  Tribunal,  the  Sugar  Commission,  the 
Opium  Commission,  the  Committee  on  the  Map 
of  the  World,  the  Bureau  for  the  Publication  of 
Customs  Tariffs,  etc.  Some  of  these  are  the  re- 
sult of  official  action  through  diplomatic  inter- 
course, others  of  private  initiative;  but  all  com- 
bine to  unify  the  nations,  and  to  accustom  them 
to  cooperation  and  submission  to  collective  de- 
cisions. 

The  success  of  these  efforts  suggests  the  util- 
ity of  still  wider  joint  action  in  the  treatment  of 
those  residuary  problems  which  cannot  be  solved 
by  legal  processes  because  they  are  matters  not  of 
strict  legality,  but  of  national  policy. 

I  refer  now  to  those  great  international  ques- 
tions of  an  economic  nature  which  create  the  con- 
ditions  for  economic  imperialism,   and   which, 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     201 

more  than  any  other  definable  causes,  endanger 
the  peace  of  the  world.  The  seed-plot  of  future 
wars  is  to  be  found  in  the  undeveloped  countries. 
Unable  to  protect  themselves,  they  are  forced  to 
rely  upon  the  protection  of  stronger  countries,  and 
they  often  become  the  victims  of  their  designs. 
China,  Persia,  Morocco,  Turkey,  the  Balkan 
States,  South  Africa,  these  have  been  the  great 
centers  of  international  disturbance.  It  is  not 
merely  that  they  are  markets  for  manufactured 
goods.  That  rivalry  of  mere  salesmen  might 
be  comparatively  innocuous.  Economic  imperi- 
alism has  its  roots  in  the  exportation  of  capital 
seeking  permanent  investment  in  backward  coun- 
tries, in  concessions,  in  the  political  influence  that 
extorts  them,  and  mainly  in  the  foreign  govern- 
mental power  that  backs  up  and  supports  the 
extortions.  Finally,  the  rivalry  for  monopoly 
between  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  different  gov- 
ernments leads  to  friction.  Intrigues  follow, 
contracts  are  opposed  or  broken,  acquired  rights 
are  insisted  upon,  and  powerful  financial  influ- 
ences are  brought  to  bear  for  the  employment  of 
armies  and  navies  to  enforce  them.     Dynastic 


202     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

imperialism  masks  its  political  designs  under  this 
defense  of  alleged  national  rights  and  interests, 
and  embraces  the  opportunity  to  make  a  popular 
war;  whereas,  without  such  an  excuse,  there 
would  be  opposition  to  a  military  adventure. 

It  cannot  be  held  that  the  development  of  the 
backward  countries  is  undesirable,  or  that  the 
protection  of  its  own  nationals  by  a  government 
is  not  a  duty.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  only  by 
foreign  capital  that  the  resources  of  these 
neglected  territories  can  be  utilized  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind;  and  every  citizen  has  a  rightful 
claim  upan  his  government  to  protect  him  from 
injustice  even  in  a  foreign  land.  The  extension 
of  civilization  over  the  earth  demands  both  the 
enterprise  of  the  pioneer  and  the  assertion  of  civil 
authority.  The  crime  of  governments  is  that  for 
political  advantage  they  make  business  a  partner 
in  schemes  of  military  exploitation;  and  the  folly 
of  the  business  world  is  that  it  invites  the  power 
of  the  sword  to  tip  the  balance  of  business  compe- 
tition, thereby  involving  itself  in  military  costs 
that  heavily  handicap  all  industrial  and  commer- 
cial activities  in  time  of  peace,  and  sweep  them  to 
the  brink  of  ruin  in  time  of  war. 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     203 

From  these  undeniable  facts  two  fallacious  con- 
clusions are  sometimes  drawn :  ( 1 )  that  foreign  in- 
vestors and  diplomatists  are  conspirators  against 
peace;  and  (2)  that  those  who  extend  their  enter- 
prises to  foreign  lands  deserve  for  their  cupidity 
to  suffer  loss  if  they  meet  with  misfortune. 

Neither  of  these  conclusions  is  founded  in  fact 
or  is  worthy  of  acceptance.  If  all  nations  should 
accept  them,  there  would  be  an  end  to  all  foreign 
trade.  It  is  true  that  foreign  investors  seek  gov- 
ernmental protection,  and  that  wise  governments 
protect  foreign  investors;  but  in  neither  case  is 
there  good  ground  for  accusation  of  wrong-doing. 
The  evil  is  that,  instead  of  promoting  the  conduct 
of  international  business  upon  proper  business 
lines,  by  international  agreement  and  coopera- 
tion, governments,  without  effectual  efforts  to 
avoid  the  use  of  military  force,  employ  it  as  an 
instrument  of  national  commercial  success  and 
territorial  expansion;  that  is,  to  secure  and  hold 
points  of  permanent  advantage,  through  political 
control  of  distant  and  strategical  parts  of  the 
earth,  for  the  extension  of  empire.  Exploita- 
tion, monopoly,  colonization,  and  conquest  are 
the  successive  steps  in  this  procedure. 


204     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

To  such  processes,  sustained  by  military  force, 
international  law  and  courts  of  arbitration  pre- 
sent but  feeble  barriers.  So  long  as  these  con- 
tinue to  be  national  policies,  there  will  be  much 
that  cannot  be  brought  within  the  scope  of  in- 
ternational legislation.  But  is  it  not  evident  that 
these  business  interests  are  proper  subjects  for 
negotiation  and  conciliation?  The  moment  the 
problem  of  trade  is  envisaged  as  a  purely  business 
proposition  apart  from  dynastic  considerations, 
it  is  clear  that  military  methods  of  extending 
civilization  are  not  in  the  true  interest  of  the 
people  of  any  country,  and  not  even  to  the  high- 
est advantage  of  the  persons  who  for  commercial 
reasons  encourage  them. 

It  is  time,  therefore,  for  business  men — the 
great  manufacturers,  bankers,  ship-owners,  and 
traders — to  say  to  their  governments:  *'We  do 
not  ask  you  to  promote  our  interests  by  armies 
and  navies;  we  wish  you  to  give  us  an  oppor- 
tunity to  organize  the  business  of  the  world  on 
business  lines.  While  your  diplomatists  and  jur- 
ists meet  at  The  Hague  to  settle  questions  of 
rights,  bring  us  together  with  your  sanction  in  a 
world  congress  with  representatives  of  other  na- 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     205 

tions  to  consider  our  mutual  interests.  We  shall 
speak  of  coal,  of  iron,  of  shipping,  of  the  gold 
supply,  and  of  their  distribution;  and  we  shall 
be  able  to  show  that  if  the  governments  will  keep 
their  hands  off  and  leave  our  business  to  us,  the 
whole  world  shall  be  well  fed  and  well  warmed 
and  well  clothed;  and,  at  the  same  time  we  shall 
all,  yes  ally  obtain  a  greater  share  of  wealth  than 
we  now  have  or  can  ever  hope  to  have  under  the 
military  system.  And  when  we  have  ourselves, 
as  business  men,  worked  out  our  plans  and  our 
compromises,  then  we  shall  ask  you  to  unite,  as 
governments,  to  see  that  the  seas  are  free  from 
piracy  and  menace  to  life  and  property,  and  that 
we  may  have  the  combined  force  of  civilized  gov- 
ernments behind  us  to  protect  us  from  robbery 
and  abuse  by  any  one  of  them." 

In  brief,  an  international  board  of  trade  con- 
ciliation, composed  of  representative  business 
men,  supplemented  by  frequent  general  confer- 
ences, with  no  force  behind  them  but  the  evi- 
dence of  facts  and  the  power  of  persuasion,  if 
held  to  complete  publicity,  could  accomplish  more 
in  five  years  to  insure  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  world  than  any  secret  negotiations  by  dip- 


206     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

lomatists  backed  by  all  the  armies  in  existence. 
If  the  business  of  the  world  were  once  frankly 
established  upon  a  world  basis,  community  of  in- 
terest would  go  far  to  discourage  war,  for  modern 
wars  originate  chiefly  from  economic  inequalities 
and  ambitions ;  and  the  agents  of  economic  power, 
if  they  were  not  in  alliance  with  military  force 
exercised  in  the  interest  of  dynastic  purposes, 
could  more  easily  satisfy  them  by  purely  economic 
means. 

There  remain  the  questions  of  free  waterways 
— the  paths  of  world  intercourse — from  which 
some  nations  are  excluded,  the  "open  door"  in 
the  countries  of  still  unappropriated  markets,  and 
the  tariff  walls.  These  also  are  business  ques- 
tions and  fit  problems  for  business  men,  which 
the  sword  can  never  rightly  settle.  So  far,  they 
also  have  been  regarded  as  purely  political  ques- 
tions, and  have  been  treated  as  such.  But  all 
matters  of  policy  are  primarily  questions  of  profit 
or  expediency  and  not  of  right  and  wrong,  al- 
though they  may  involve  them.  The  difference  is 
important,  for  right  and  wrong  cannot  be  com- 
promised, while  expediency  and  profit  are  always 
affairs  of  transaction.     There  is,  therefore,  noth- 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION     207 

ing  hopeless  in  such  problems,  which  are  matters 
to  argue  about,  but  not  to  fight  about. 

'Being  an  economic  as  well  as  a  jural  problem, 
international  organization  must  be  worked  out  by 
a  combination  of  governmental  and  business 
agencies.  Neither  can  be  entrusted  with  the  en- 
tire task.  The  material  needs  of  mankind  can- 
not be  regulated  by  rigid  legal  formulae,  which 
would  impose  a  despotism  too  depressing  to  be 
endured.  On  the  other  hand,  purely  business 
motives  which,  if  given  a  free  hand,  might  pro- 
duce intolerable  commercial  trusts,  in  the  end 
more  powerful  than  governments,  are  in  need  of 
legal  control.  It  is  by  the  intelligent  cooperation 
of  these  two  agencies,  the  legal  and  the  economic, 
for  the  welfare  of  mankind,  that  international  or- 
ganization will  attain  its  normal  ends. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  CONSTRUCTIVE  POWER  OF 
DEMOCRACY 

IN  view  of  its  bearing  upon  the  problem  of  inter- 
national organization,  one  of  the  fundamental 
questions  in  the  great  conflict  that  began  in 
Europe  in  1914  and  has  now  extended  to  the  whole 
world  appears  to  be  whether  autocracy  or  democ- 
racy is  finally  to  prevail.  At  first  apparently  a 
mere  struggle  for  tribal  predominance,  the  war 
has  become  a  battle  of  institutions  and  legal  sys- 
tems. Is  the  world  to  be  ruled  by  force  or  by 
law?  And  if  by  law,  who  is  to  say  what  the  law 
shall  be? 

No  thoughtful  man  can  any  longer  doubt  that 
imperialism  has  destroyed  Europe  and  can  never 
reconstruct  it.  The  reason  is  evident.  Imperial- 
ism means  the  forcible  domination  of  one  nation 
over  others.  Imperial  policies  not  only  conflict, 
they  are  intrinsically  incapable  of  reconciliation. 

208 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         209 

An  appeal,  therefore,  is  now  made  to  democracy 
to  bring  peace  and  order  and  mutual  confidence 
out  of  the  chaos  that  autocratic  rule  has  produced. 
All  the  aspirations  for  the  creation  of  a  truly 
human  world — a  world  in  which  general  prin- 
ciples of  justice  shall  prevail — seem  to  gather 
around  this  word  as  if  it  were  the  only  remaining 
hope  of  humanity.  Never  before  has  the  need  of 
a  great  constructive  principle  in  international 
affairs  been  so  apparent.  Never  before  has  the 
opportunity  for  its  employment  been  so  auspi- 
cious. Never  before  has  mankind,  as  if  inspired 
by  a  common  impulse,  so  completely  broken  away 
from  autocratic  traditions.  To-day  it  is  a  fact 
that  four-fifths  of  the  habitable  surface  of  the 
earth  is  dedicated  to  the  aspirations  of  democracy ; 
and  included  in  this  area  is  at  least  three-fourths 
of  the  human  race.  China,  with  her  four  hun- 
dred million  human  beings,  and  Russia,  with 
nearly  two  hundred  millions,  have  thrown  off  the 
yoke  of  absolutism,  and  joined  the  great  republics 
of  the  West  in  the  stupendous  task  of  national 
self-government. 

They,  too,  are  in  this  war  for  democracy. 
What  does  it  mean  to  them,  this  old  Greek  word 


210     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

which  has  had  such  a  short  history  and  yet  con- 
tains such  vast  implications?  What  is  the  phi- 
losophy that  lies  behind  it  or  within  it?  What 
new  direction  does  it  point  out?  What  new  en- 
ergies does  it  release?  What  new  ideals  does  it 
set  up?  What  new  achievements  does  it  imply? 
Shall  they  be  the  better  or  the  worse  for  the  work- 
ing of  this  new  leaven  that  seems  about  to  change 
the  destiny  of  nations  ? 

If  democracy  were  merely  a  repudiation  of  au- 
tocracy, a  mere  escape  from  authority,  a  mere 
drift  into  vacuity,  it  would  undoubtedly  be  a  dan- 
gerous experiment  for  any  nation  to  embark  upon. 
It  does,  indeed,  begin  with  a  demand  for  liberty, 
but  this  is  by  no  means  a  negative  conception.  It 
is  rather  a  constructive  force.  Liberty  is  the  re- 
moval of  hindrances  to  the  largest,  fullest,  most 
fruitful  human  activities.  But  it  is  not  an  end, 
it  is  only  a  condition.  And  what  demands  this 
condition  is  the  whole  volume  of  human  longing 
and  striving,  the  reaching  out  for  self-realization 
in  thought  and  action.  It  is,  in  brief,  humanity 
pressing  onward  to  its  goal. 

It  is  this  vast  inward  urgency  that  gives  sig- 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         211 

nificance  to  democracy.  It  is  imperative,  it  is 
irresistible.  By  suppressing  the  individual  per- 
son, this  aspiration  may  for  a  time  seem  to  be 
destroyed ;  but  at  some  unexpected  moment  it  will 
break  out  anew  and  sweep  everything  before  it. 
It  is  essentially  a  mass  movement.  Isolated,  the 
individual  person  is  timid,  circumspect,  even  ob- 
sequious. United,  the  people  are  bold,  manda- 
tory, overwhelming.  "The  will  of  the  people" — 
how  the  demagogue  loves  to  appeal  to  it,  to  invoke 
it,  to  inspire  it,  to  utilize  it,  to  appropriate  it  to 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes!  And  how 
readily  it  responds  to  any  ardent  touch  that  evokes 
its  expression!  The  sense  of  restraint  removed, 
the  prospect  of  desires  gratified,  the  impulse  of 
new-found  power — what  an  exaltation,  what  an 
intoxication  they  produce ! 

But  if  this  were  all,  if  the  change  from  an  auto- 
cratic to  a  democratic  regime  resulted  in  nothing 
but  this  elation  of  spirit,  we  might  be  able  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  revolutions,  but  we  could  not 
justify  them  to  our  intelligence.  When  it  comes 
to  a  question  of  political  philosophy  and  we  are 
asked  to  establish  the  substantial  excellence  of 
democracy,  we  enter  an  arena  of  debate  in  which 


212     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

there  is  a  wide  field  for  discussion.  Granting  the 
existence  of  a  high  degree  of  intelligence,  there 
is  no  security  in  that  alone.  Man  is  a  being  of 
mixed  desires;  some  of  them  are  good  and  some 
of  them  are  bad.  Into  what  is  called  "the  will  of 
the  people"  all  of  these  enter  as  constituent  mo- 
tives or  impulses.  What  is  to  certify  that  this 
will  shall  be  always  a  good  will  ?  How  shall  we 
know  that  sometimes  it  may  not  be  base  and  sel- 
fish ?  How  shall  we  be  sure  that  the  evil  may  not 
predominate  over  the  good,  the  many  over  the 
few,  the  vicious  over  the  virtuous,  the  idle  and 
the  empty-handed  over  the  industrious  and  the 
prudent.  What  security,  it  may  be  asked,  has 
any  principle  of  right,  where  the  arbitrary  will  of 
an  unrestricted  majority  prevails?  Who  can  be 
held  responsible  for  its  action?  What  can  re- 
strain it  from  misconduct?  Why  do  we  put  up 
the  sign,  ''Beware  of  pickpockets"  in  great  assem- 
blies, and  increase  the  police  force  the  larger  the 
crowd  becomes  ?  If  as  a  totality  it  is  honest,  why 
does  the  mass  of  men  need  to  be  so  carefully 
guarded  against  itself?  If  life  and  property  are 
safer  under  the  protection  of  a  paid  agent  than 
when  they  are  entrusted  to  the  spontaneous  im- 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         213 

pulses  of  a  multitude,  is  it  not  wiser,  it  will  be 
demanded,  to  concentrate  unlimited  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  capable  ruler,  set  apart  for  the  pur- 
pose and  placed  beyond  the  influence  of  ordinary 
motives  ? 

This  is,  in  fact,  the  thesis  of  those  who 
defend  the  idea  of  monarchy  as  a  form  of  govern- 
ment. Assuming  that  a  personal  sovereign  can 
be  placed  and  kept  beyond  the  influence  of  ordi- 
nary human  motives,  the  theory  has  distinct  ad- 
vantages. Objection  to  it  cannot  well  be  urged 
on  the  ground  that  it  involves  a  concentration  of 
power,  for  this  is  sometimes  necessary  to  effi- 
ciency; and,  in  great  emergencies,  like  those 
created  by  the  present  war,  it  is  resorted  to  by 
democracies,  also,  as  the  only  means  of  their 
preservation.  What  renders  monarchy  indefen- 
sible in  the  eyes  of  democracy  is  that  it  recognizes 
as  supreme  a  power  that  is  above  the  law,  and 
that  claims  to  be  an  arbitrary  source  of  law.  The 
protest  of  democracy  against  autocracy  is  not 
based  on  the  fact  that  definite  and  necessary  au- 
thority is  confided  to  one  man.  It  is  that  autoc- 
racy consists  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  that  is  not 
only  not  under  the  restraint  of  law,  but  claims 


214     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

authority  to  ignore  all  law — a  power  that  deter- 
mines the  destinies  of  men  and  of  whole  nations 
without  regard  to  any  principles  of  right,  treating 
them  as  mere  passive  instruments  of  its  own  aims 
and  purposes,  or  of  aims  and  purposes  inspired 
by  those  who  can  influence  the  sovereign  for  their 
own  private  and  exclusive  benefit. 

When  we  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  indictment 
against  autocracy,  it  is  not  at  all  that  one  man 
represents  the  will  of  a  whole  nation,  but  that  an 
arbitrary  and  lawless  will  is  in  command  of 
dangerous  forces,  and  insists  on  doing  what  a 
just  rule  of  action  would  forbid.  Every  type  of 
human  government  must  of  necessity  admit  of  the 
delegation  of  powers,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  no  con- 
cern to  one  nation  to  whom  another  nation  dele- 
gates those  powers.  The  whole  issue  centers 
around  the  question,  What  is  the  source  and 
measure  of  rightful  authority? 

What  democracy  asserts  and  autocracy  denies 
is  that  all  rightful  authority  in  human  govern- 
ments is  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  human 
beings  who  are  to  be  governed.  When,  there- 
fore, Autocracy  declares,  "I  create  the  law  because 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         215 

I  am  strong,"  Democracy  replies,  "It  is  justice, 
not  strength,  that  should  create  the  law." 

What  then  is  the  origin  of  law?  Historically 
rules  of  action  have  been  laid  down  by  those  who 
have  had  the  power  to  enforce  them.  Before  such 
rules  were  consciously  and  specifically  formulated, 
law  consisted  in  the  customs  of  the  groups  or 
societies  in  which  they  had  come  to  be  adopted  as 
the  usual  modes  of  action.  In  the  societies  where 
conquest  or  other  forms  of  ascendancy  had  pro- 
duced a  personal  ruler,  they  were  the  edicts  or 
decrees  of  the  ruler  and  his  counselors.  These 
forms  of  obedience  were  imposed  upon  subject 
peoples  and  accompanied  with  the  prospect  of 
penalties  to  be  inflicted  if  they  were  not  regarded. 
To  the  historical  school  of  legal  philosophy,  there- 
fore, law  is  simply  the  sum  of  those  rules  of  action 
which  have  an  outward  sanction.  It  is  an  ex- 
pression of  sovereign  will.  It  is  a  trophy  of 
power.  Whoever  can  enforce  his  will  can  make 
the  law.  With  morality  and  abstract  right  it  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do.  If  it  is  just,  it  is  not 
because  law  is  essentially  just,  but  because  it  has 
happened  to  be  prescribed  in  a  spirit  of  justice. 


216     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

It  is,  in  fact,  often  unjust;  but,  just  or  unjust,  it 
is  expedient  to  obey  it,  for,  like  the  laws  of  the 
natural  world,  it  is  a  part  of  the  environment  in 
which  we  live,  and  the  consequences  of  obedience 
and  disobedience  are  reasonably  sure  to  follow. 

From  this  theory  of  the  nature  of  law  is  derived 
an  equally  arbitrary  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 
state.  Etymologically,  it  is  the  status,  the  condi- 
tion which  the  sovereign  has  imposed.  The  phi- 
losophers of  course  could  not  neglect  so  interesting 
a  subject  of  speculation,  and  some  of  them  have 
represented  it  as  a  kind  of  self-subsisting  entity, 
an  emanation  of  a  metaphysical  absolute,  an  in- 
carnation of  divinity,  and  even  as  a  huge  levia- 
than, a  natural  organism  of  which  the  monarch 
is  the  head,  and  of  which  the  ordinary  person  is 
only  a  subordinate  molecule.  Autocracy  has 
eagerly  appropriated  these  conceptions  as  furnish- 
ing a  convenient  vehicle  for  imposing  its  preten- 
sions by  making  itself  seem  to  be  a  part  of  the 
order  of  nature.  Wishing  to  screen  itself  from 
the  exactions  of  morality  as  well  as  from  the  judg- 
ments of  the  intellect,  it  has  enveloped  itself  in 
the  impenetrable  mysteries  of  religion,  thus  ren- 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         217 

dering  itself  unapproachable  by  the  common  man, 
and  wholly  inscrutable  to  the  ordinary  mind. 

Democracy  has  irreverently  swept  aside  this 
veil  of  metaphysical  mysticism.  For  it  law  is  to 
be  discovered  in  the  nature  of  man  as  a  personal 
and  social  being.  It  is  something  other  than  the 
sum  of  sovereign  decrees.  It  is  a  revelation  of 
mutual  obligations.  Like  the  truths  of  nature 
it  is  an  object  of  unending  research.  Its  basic 
principles  like  geometric  axioms  are  intuitions 
of  universal  reason.  It  springs  from  inherent 
personal  rights,  and  issues  in  social  duties.  It  is 
preeminently  a  principle  of  intelligence.  It  finds 
its  standards  in  universal  rational  conceptions  like 
those  of  justice  and  equity.  It  has  never  yet  at- 
tained perfect  expression,  but  it  is  an  ever-present 
mandate  of  nature,  which,  like  a  flowing  stream, 
rushes  on  amid  new  and  changing  scenes,  as  vari- 
able in  its  content  as  the  growing  needs  of  men, 
but  as  firm  in  the  indications  of  its  direction  as  the 
granite  walls  that  bound  the  course  of  a  mighty 
river  on  its  journey  to  the  sea. 

It  is  this  idea  of  law  as  a  persistent  human  ideal 
that  has  determined  democracy's  conception  of  the 
state,  which  is  not  a  self-subsisting  entity,  and 


218     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

not  like  society  a  purely  natural  product,  but  a 
creation  of  the  mind  and  purpose  of  man.  It 
belongs  to  the  category  of  legal  relations  rather 
than  to  that  of  material  substance.  Its  only  sub- 
stantial components  are  the  wills  of  human  per- 
sons. If  there  were  no  people,  there  would  be  no 
state. 

Historically,  it  is  true,  the  state  has  consisted 
chiefly  in  a  relation  of  subordination  between  the 
persons  ruled  and  the  persons  who  ruled  them. 
It  was  a  status  produced  by  the  domination  of  the 
weak  by  the  strong.  It  is  historically  correct, 
therefore,  to  speak  of  the  state  as  "a  creation  of 
force,"  and  of  sovereignty,  which  is  its  essence, 
as  "supreme  power."  This  is  the  state  as  autoc- 
racy would  maintain  it,  the  creation  of  arbitrary 
power  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  any  binding  law, 
and  without  any  form  of  responsibility. 

For  democracy  the  state  has  an  entirely  differ- 
ent meaning.  It  is  a  status  produced  not  by  force, 
but  by  voluntary  consent.  It  is  the  expression  of 
what  is  most  vital  and  essential  in  the  nature  of 
man  as  a  moral  and  social  being.  As  law  is  de- 
rived from  principles  inherent  in  rational  intelli- 
gence, the  state  is  an  embodiment  of  law  in  per- 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         219 

manent  institutions.  Both  the  law  and  the  state 
rest  on  the  axiom  of  inherent  personal  rights  to 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

Autocracy  speaks  as  if  life  itself  belonged  to 
the  individual  person  only  through  an  act  of 
grace.  In  fact  it  proclaims  openly  that  the  state 
is  the  sole  creator  of  rights,  and  what  it  has  cre- 
ated it  may  also  take  away.  Democracy  reverses 
these  relations,  and  declares  that  government  is 
created  by  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Priority 
therefore  belongs  to  the  individual  person,  be- 
cause society  is  wholly  composed  of  individual 
persons,  in  whom  alone  is  to  be  found  either  a 
basis  or  a  consciousness  of  rights.  Not,  indeed, 
persons  in  isolation  or  as  abstract  entities,  for 
men  have  never  existed  in  separation  from  society 
into  which  all  are  bom  and  of  which  all  form  a 
part.  It  is  from  the  nature  of  human  beings  ex- 
isting in  communities  that  democracy  derives  its 
theory  of  rights,  but  it  is  not  from  the  fact  of 
"social  solidarity"  that  it  can  be  deduced.  That 
fact  alone  contains  no  implication  of  rightful 
authority,  or  of  any  moral  qualities  whatever. 
Each  person  in  a  community  might  still  be  a 
member  of  it  without  observing  any  rule  but  his 


220     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

own  interest  if  that  were  the  general  disposition. 
A  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  could 
never  be  deduced  from  such  a  community.  Such 
a  distinction  exists  only  for  the  individual  mind 
and  conscience  and  can  be  predicated  only  of 
individual  minds  and  consciences  capable  of 
knowing  their  own  rights  and  the  duties  correla- 
tive to  such  rights. 

If  the  state  cannot  be  founded  on  the  mere  fact 
of  social  solidarity,  it  is  even  less  possible  to  base 
it  upon  the  fiction  of  a  self-subsistent  ''social  con- 
sciousness," for  such  a  consciousness  does  not 
exist.  There  is  in  a  community  a  general  con- 
sensus of  ideas  and  sentiments,  but  it  inheres  in 
the  minds  of  its  individual  members  only.  To 
them  it  has  the  quality  of  a  law  for  conduct,  and 
the  expression  of  it  becomes  the  solid  foundation 
of  the  state.  Its  value  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  it  is  recognized  to  be  an  embodiment  of  jus- 
tice, and  may  therefore  be  generally  accepted 
without  resort  to  violence.  Being  the  composite 
formula  of  their  united  conceptions  of  their  rights^ 
obedience  to  it  may  be  secured  with  a  minimum 
of  penalty. 

But  if  it  is  true  that  a  just  government  is  a 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         221 

creation  of  the  governed,  the  question  is  pressed 
upon  us,  How  far  may  some  individual  persons 
rightly  enforce  their  own  private  wills  upon  other 
individual  persons?  If  there  is  any  rightful 
authority  in  government,  it  must  be  derived  from 
beings  who  believe  themselves  to  possess  inherent 
rights  because  they  distinguish  between  right  and 
wrong  in  conduct.  What  inherent  rights  then  do 
some  possess  which  do  not  belong  to  all?  And 
what  principle  can  be  adopted  as  a  standard  of 
judgment  unless  it  is  universal  ? 

We  perceive,  therefore,  that,  while  autocracy 
has  no  solid  moral  foundation,  the  triumph  of  de- 
mocracy involves  a  principle  of  self-abnegation 
which  not  all  the  advocates  of  its  desirability  are 
willing  to  accept.  The  people  cannot  logically 
take  over  and  exercise  the  absolute  and  unlimited 
authority  which  they  have  repudiated.  We  are 
compelled  to  recognize  the  fact  that  when  it  comes 
to  imposing  an  absolute  will  upon  a  person  to  an 
extent  that  robs  him  of  an  inherent  right  like 
that  to  life,  liberty,  or  property,  it  makes  no  prac- 
tical difference  whether  that  deprivation  is  ef- 
fected by  one  or  a  few  or  a  majority  of  his  fellow- 


222     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

beings,  since  in  all  these  cases  he  is  equally  di- 
vested of  his  right.  When  the  state  does  this,  no 
matter  what  the  form  of  government  may  be,  it 
becomes  despotic,  and  its  tyranny  is  as  odious 
under  one  disguise  as  under  another. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  for  democracy  to  plant 
itself  firmly  and  unalterably  upon  the  rights  of 
the  individual  person  and  the  doctrine  that  gov- 
ernment exists  to  secure  these  rights.  Unless  it 
stands  upon  this  foundation,  it  has  no  ground  of 
protest  against  autocracy,  and  it  has  no  means  of 
self-justification.  A  society  may  transform  itself 
into  a  predatory  band,  but,  however  numerous  or 
powerful  it  may  be,  it  is  impossible  to  identify 
such  a  band  with  the  democratic  conception  of  the 
state.  A  true  democracy  can  neither  oppress  the 
poor  nor  rob  the  rich,  for  it  is  based  on  equal  laws 
for  all.  If  it  were  not  loyal  to  the  right  of  every 
man,  no  matter  how  humble  or  how  fortunate,  it 
would  repudiate  its  own  basis  of  authority.  It 
might,  when  supported  by  great  majorities,  be 
very  formidable,  even  irresistible,  but,  although 
by  means  of  its  power  it  could  enforce  obedience, 
it  could  not  command  our  respect  or  inspire  our 
loyalty. 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         223 

The  right  of  a  government  to  claim  legitimacy 
and  to  demand  that  its  authority  be  respected  is 
in  no  sense  founded  upon  its  power,  but  upon  its 
purpose,  and  that  purpose  must  be  the  protection 
of  all  human  rights.  Everything  else  is  pure  as- 
sumption. And  there  are  in  the  world  no  rights 
that  are  not  in  some  sense  inherent  in  persons,  or 
in  some  manner  derived  from  them.  Eliminate 
the  human  being  from  your  order  of  ideas,  and 
you  have  not  only  rendered  rightful  authority  an 
illusion,  you  have  also  destroyed  altogether  the 
sole  foundation  for  the  conception  of  right,  and 
reduced  the  whole  fabric  of  society  to  a  complex 
of  purely  mechanical  relations. 

If  this  be  true,  there  is  no  human  being,  no  mat- 
ter how  poor  or  feeble  or  helpless,  who  does  not, 
by  virtue  of  the  nature  and  dignity  of  personality 
possess  inherent  rights  and  claims  to  just  consider- 
ation which  the  most  overwhelming  majorities 
cannot  take  away  without  the  logical  destruction 
of  their  own  right  to  formulate  the  law;  for  the 
right  to  make  law  has  no  other  solid  foundation 
than  this,  that  it  consists  simply  and  solely  in  the 
right  to  protect  personal  rights  by  placing  the 
whole  force  of  the  community  behind  them. 


224     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

This  is  the  creed  of  democracy.  Against  it 
autocracy  opposes  the  traditions  of  power,  the 
sophisms  of  sovereignty,  the  keen  edge  of  the 
drawn  sword.  Above  all  human  rights  it  places 
the  interests  of  the  state  as  supreme  power,  with 
its  pretended  right  of  conquest  and  subjugation, 
derived  from  some  mysterious  mandate  of  deity 
in  whose  name  it  claims  the  exclusive  right  to 
speak.  It  boasts  of  the  gleam  of  its  shining 
armor.  It  hides  its  schemes  of  dishonor  behind 
the  mask  of  virtue.  It  promises  glory  and  plun- 
der. It  tramples  the  breasts  of  women  under  the 
feet  of  its  horses.  It  rains  fire  from  the  clouds, 
desolates  fair  landscapes,  mutilates  temples,  car- 
ries whole  populations  into  slavery,  and  adds  to 
the  natural  terrors  of  the  sea  the  diabolical  con- 
trivances of  human  ingenuity  dedicated  to  the  task 
of  wholesale  destruction. 

While  humanity  shudders,  democracy  goes 
forth  to  the  rescue.  It  is  the  battle  of  St.  George 
and  the  dragon  multiplied  by  all  the  powers  of 
strong  nations.  But  it  is  not  a  contest  of  ma- 
terial forces  only.  It  is  a  struggle  of  principles. 
How  can  Europe  be  reconstituted?  How  can 
civilization  be  restored?     How   can  the  world 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         225 

resume  its  task  of  culture  and  social  develop- 
ment? 

Autocracy  has  no  answer.  Triumphant,  it 
would  cause  all  nations  to  pass  under  its  yoke  and 
yield  to  its  exactions.  Only  half  defeated,  even 
in  its  death-throes  it  would  invoke  new  wars, 
dream  of  more  cruel  barbarities,  plan  still  wider 
devastations.  Let  the  battle,  then,  be  fought  out 
now.  But  first  it  must  be  won  in  the  thoughts 
of  men.  Who  is  it  who  speaks  for  humanity? 
Is  it  autocracy  or  is  it  democracy?  What  can 
end  triumphant  tribalism?  What  can  establish 
universal  humanism  ?  It  is  man  and  not  the  state 
that  can  give  the  answer. 

But  the  state  must  continue  to  exist.  The  na- 
tions are  persistent  realities.  They  may  be  deci- 
mated in  numbers  and  impoverished  in  their  pos- 
sessions, but  they  cannot  be  destroyed.  Ruined 
in  fortune,  broken  and  mutilated  in  person,  men 
may  enclose  themselves  in  trenches  and  fortifica- 
tions with  death  in  perpetual  command  of  their 
frontiers,  but  they  will  still  cling  to  their  national- 
ity; in  their  desperate  extremity  they  will  learn 
more  and  more  to  love  it,  and  as  long  as  a  shred  of 


226     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

the  riddled  and  blood-stained  banner  of  their 
country  flutters  above  the  field  of  carnage,  they 
will  still  feel  that  they  belong  to  a  nation. 

What,  then,  is  a  nation,  but  a  group  of  men 
with  common  traditions,  common  memories,  com- 
mon interests,  and  common  aims?  But  there  is 
also  the  larger  community.  The  traditions,  the 
memories,  the  interests,  and  the  aims  may  be  very 
different,  but  beneath  them  all  and  over  them  all 
is  the  community  of  rights.  These  are  not  tribal. 
They  are  not  national.  They  are  human  and 
universal. 

Between  democracy  and  the  fiction  of  unlimited 
sovereignty  there  can  be  no  logical  alliance.  If 
the  postulates  of  democracy  are  true,  then  the  pre- 
tension to  unlimited  sovereignty  is  false.  A  state 
has  no  rights  that  are  not  derived  from  the  rights 
of  the  persons  who  compose  it.  The  government 
they  create  has  no  other  source  of  authority.  But 
even  the  sum  of  all  such  rights  does  not  create  an 
unlimited  sovereignty.  By  virtue  of  their  origin, 
the  just  powers  of  the  state  are  limited  both  as 
respects  its  citizens,  and  as  regards  all  other 
states;  for  the  inherent  rights  of  its  components, 
on  which  the  whole  structure  of  its  authority 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         227 

rests,  may  not  justly  be  taken  away  and  other 
states,  like  itself,  represent  with  equal  clearness 
the  rights  of  other  nations  which  therefore  cannot 
justly  be  denied. 

Thus  understood,  the  value  of  democracy  as  a 
basis  for  international  law  is  apparent.  As  the 
just  powers  of  separate  states  are  derived  from 
the  personal  rights  of  their  constituents,  so  the 
idea  of  international  rights  arises  from  the  rela- 
tions of  independent  states.  They,  too,  thus  be- 
come endowed  with  rights  of  existence,  of  inde- 
pendence, of  just  treatment,  of  self-defense;  but 
the  attribute  of  an  unlimited  sovereignty  is  not 
among  them.  It  cannot  be  deduced  from  any 
source  whatever  except  physical  power,  and  mere 
physical  power,  apart  from  principles  of  justice, 
is  not  legal  authority  in  any  sense  which  scientific 
jurisprudence  can  maintain. 

Autocracy,  based  on  no  distinction  of  right  and 
wrong,  asserts  the  absolute  subjection  of  some 
persons  to  the  will  and  dictation  of  other  persons, 
and  without  inconsistency  affirms  also  the  ab- 
solute subjection  of  some  nations  to  other  nations, 
the  test  of  superiority  being  merely  their  relative 
strength.     He  who  has  the  power  to  do  so  has  the 


228     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

right  to  rule;  and  the  only  limit  to  this  right, 
according  to  autocracy,  is  in  the  power  to  resist  it. 

What  this  signifies  for  democracy  is  evident. 
It  means  that  however  unwilling  to  do  so,  peace- 
able nations  must  arm  themselves  and  prepare  all 
the  vast  and  complicated  enginery  of  war  on  land 
and  sea  in  order  to  preserve  their  existence.  It 
means  that  as  long  as  autocracy  has  plans  of  con- 
quest democracy  is  in  danger.  In  vain  it  elab- 
orates constitutions  for  the  guarantee  of  individual 
rights.  In  vain  it  convokes  international  confer- 
ences. In  vain  it  signs  treaties  and  conventions. 
At  some  unexpected  moment,  perhaps  in  the  midst 
of  delicate  negotiations,  it  suddenly  hears  the 
tramp  of  invading  armies,  it  sees  the  sky  dark- 
ened with  innumerable  air  craft,  while  demons 
of  the  deep  strew  the  seas  with  shattered  ships  and 
mutilated  corpses. 

What  is  the  object  of  these  terrors  ?  It  is  that 
the  authors  of  them  may  impose  their  will  upon 
others.  The  truth  is  that  imperialism  is  not  so 
much  a  form  of  government  as  a  system  of  forci- 
ble exploitation.  No  modern  nation  supports 
autocratic  rule  merely  out  of  deference  to  a 
dynasty.     The  dogma  of  divine  right  is  held 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         229 

chiefly  by  the  rulers  who  are  its  beneficiaries ;  but 
whole  peoples,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  are 
their  business  partners  in  predatory  exploits. 
The  motive  of  these  nations  is  national  enrich- 
ment. Trade,  colonies,  mineral  resources,  to  be 
exploited  in  the  interest  of  the  commercial  class — 
these  are  the  real  pillars  of  autocracy,  resting 
upon  the  interests  of  a  military  caste — the  brood 
of  younger  sons,  too  proud  to  work,  who  must  be 
provided  with  a  gentleman's  career.  Autocracy 
flourishes  nowhere  without  the  stimulus  of  pros- 
pective war,  and  it  is  in  modem  times  a  people's 
war,  of  which  Hohenzollerns  and  Hapsburgs  are 
the  unhappy  instruments  quite  as  much  as  they 
are  the  personal  authors.  Imperialism  has  be- 
come a  national  predatory  enterprise  far  more 
than  it  is  a  political  conviction,  and  the  evidence 
of  this  is  so  overwhelming  that  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied. The  imperialistic  organizations  in  Ger- 
many that  urged  on  the  war  under  the  preposter- 
ous representation  that  the  empire  was  attacked 
are  now  declaring  that  there  can  be  "no  peace 
without  indemnities  for  the  enormous  sacrifices 
Germany  has  made,  and  to  develop  her  economic, 
cultural,  and  social  life."     "Germany,"  it  is  de- 


230     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

dared,  ^'must  secure  better  protection  for  its 
frontiers,  land  for  settlement  and  food  produc- 
tion, the  strengthening  of  its  naval  position,  and 
the  improved  condition  of  its  industries  by  greater 
supplies  of  raw  materials."  Failing  these,  it  has 
been  openly  announced  in  the  Reichstag  that  Ger- 
many must  be  indemnified  for  her  sacrifices  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

With  the  political  preferences  of  a  nation,  other 
nations  have  no  right  to  interfere;  but  when  im- 
perial exploitation  is  convicted  by  its  own  words 
of  predatory  designs,  when  it  wantonly  destroys 
the  independence  of  small  states,  expropriates 
their  resources  and  carries  into  captivity  their  van- 
quished populations,  interference  becomes  an  in- 
ternational duty. 

In  a  war  alleged  to  be  one  of  defense,  the  armies 
of  the  German  Empire  are  encamped  on  the  terri- 
tory of  twelve  independent  nations,  nine  of  which 
are  the  victims  of  its  depredations,  and  three  of 
which  are  its  partners  in  crime.  After  acts  of 
piracy  unknown  in  the  history  of  civilized  coun- 
tries, including  the  wanton  murder  of  innocent 
men,  women,  and  children  on  the  high  seas,  it 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         231 

has  taken  complete  possession  of  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  so  that  no  ship  of  any  nation  is  anywhere 
safe  from  destruction.  But  even  these  enormities 
did  not  set  a  limit  to  the  arrogance  and  outlawry 
of  the  imperial  spirit;  and  as  a  punishment  for 
the  resentment  felt  because  of  the  injuries  endured 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  was  to  be  in- 
vaded and  dismembered  by  means  of  a  subsidized 
coalition  to  be  used  as  an  instrument  for  a  blow 
at  our  national  life. 

Not  only  is  autocracy  organized  for  war  with  a 
design  to  subsist  upon  it,  but  it  carries  an  infec- 
tion that  penetrates  to  the  heart  of  bodies  politic 
that  shrink  from  contact  with  it.  Some  form  and 
degree  of  it  is  forced  upon  any  nation  which,  how- 
ever unwillingly,  seriously  undertakes  to  act  in 
its  own  defense.  All  actual  war  measures,  to 
some  extent,  denature  democracy.  Enforced 
military  service,  exorbitant  taxation,  the  sup- 
pression of  a  free  press,  the  dictatorial  powers  of 
the  executive,  the  constraint  placed  upon  legisla- 
tive action  in  time  of  war — all  these,  though  un- 
avoidable, are  encroachments  upon  the  immuni- 
ties of  the  individual  person,  suspend  the  full  en- 


232     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

joyment  of  his  personal  freedom,  and  temporarily 
assimilate  even  a  democratic  government  to  the 
rule  of  an  autocrat. 

In  order  to  preserve  their  existence  democracies 
must  submit  for  a  time  to  this  sacrifice,  but  in  do- 
ing so  they  risk  the  permanent  loss  of  some  of 
their  liberties,  for  in  a  protracted  war  these  are 
partly  forgotten,  and  if  this  condition  endures, 
they  may  never  be  wholly  recovered.  When  a 
government  is  obliged  in  self-defense  to  take  over 
all  the  people's  industries,  to  organize  all  their 
activities,  to  regulate  all  their  earnings  and  ex- 
penditures, democracy  can  hardly  distinguish  it- 
self from  autocracy  except  by  the  purity  and  ele- 
vation of  its  purpose  in  rendering  effective  its 
means  of  military  defense.  The  present  war  has 
demonstrated  that  this  is  no  unfounded  inference. 
''England,''  wrote  a  German  historian  in  the  first 
year  of  the  war,  "if  she  would  play  any  part  what- 
ever in  the  world's  future,  must  rebuild  her  po- 
litical structure  from  the  ground  up,  and  adopt  a 
state  organization  such  as  prevails  on  the  con- 
tinent, and  which  has  found  its  fullest  develop- 
ment, and  therefore  its  highest  efficiency,  in  the 
German  State." 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         233 

This  prediction  has  been  already  in  part  ful- 
filled, and  it  has  proved  that  the  very  existence  of 
free  governments  depends  upon  the  suppression 
of  that  type  of  imperialism  which  menaces  the 
independence  of  all  nations. 

There  can  therefore  be  no  permanent  peace 
until  autocratic  power  is  ended.  It  is  futile,  it  is 
grossly  inconsistent  and  reprehensible,  for  those 
who  love  peace  to  demand  it  until  the  conditions 
for  its  permanence  can  be  established. 

Can  democracy  ever  establish  it?  It  must 
either  do  so  or  itself  be  overcome.  It  alone  pos- 
sesses the  constructive  power  to  impose  peace  by 
the  extension  of  the  universal  principles  of  justice 
from  which  it  derives  its  own  existence.  If  it 
should  prove  false  to  them,  its  historic  mission 
must  end  in  failure.  It  has  no  quarrel  with  the 
idea  of  nationality;  but  the  problem  of  national- 
ity, with  its  serious  geographic  complications,  can 
never  be  solved  by  any  mere  barter  and  sale  of 
nations  or  by  any  process  of  national  vivisection. 
Its  only  solution  is  in  the  souls  of  the  people. 
Render  them  free  to  choose,  give  them  their  rights 
of  unrestrained  affiliation,  cultural  development, 
local  legislation,  federation  according  to  their 


234     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

native  affinities,  the  assured  independence  of  the 
groups  thus  formed,  and  just  economic  advan- 
tages, and  no  serious  problems  of  nationality  will 
remain. 

But  this  involves  a  reconstruction  of  the  idea  of 
sovereignty.  In  its  dynastic  sense  the  word  must 
be  eliminated  from  the  vocabulary  of  international 
politics.  No  ruler  should  be  the  possessor  of 
whole  populations  merely  because  he  has  con- 
quered them.  For  democracies  the  word  sover- 
eignty in  its  absolute  sense  has  no  meaning. 
What  remains  of  it  and  all  to  which  constitutional 
states  can  lay  claim  is  merely  the  right  of  a  free 
and  independent  nation  to  exist,  to  legislate  for 
itself,  to  defend  itself,  and  to  enter  into  relations 
with  other  similar  states  on  the  basis  of  juristic 
equality,  under  principles  of  international  law 
which  respect  its  inherent  rights  as  free  constitu- 
tions respect  the  rights  of  the  individual  persons 
who  live  under  them. 

With  this  high  purpose  of  establishing  law  and 
liberty,  young  men  and  old  may  well  gird  them- 
selves for  the  conflict.  Whoever  does  so  may  rest 
tranquilly  under  the  gaze  of  the  eternal  stars  that 
shine  in  the  wide  firmament  over  his  bivouac  at 


POWER  OF  DEMOCRACY         235 

midnight,  and  may  firmly  face  the  curtain  of  fire 
in  the  deeper  night  of  beclouded  battle,  for  he  will 
be  in  communion  with  all  that  is  noblest  in  the 
past  and  all  that  is  greatest  in  the  future.  And 
if  he  fall  in  this  struggle,  he  may  close  his  eyes 
with  the  assurance  that  his  act  of  sacrifice  will 
open  to  him  a  deeper  sense  of  communion  with  the 
Being  that  has  placed  in  his  keeping  for  immortal 
uses  the  powers  of  a  mortal  life. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
AMERICA'S  INTEREST  IN  THE  NEW  EUROPE 

VITAL  as  the  principles  of  democracy  are  be- 
lieved to  be  to  the  independence  of  nations 
and  the  ultimate  peace  of  the  world,  the  United 
States  of  America  would  never  have  entered  the 
Great  War  for  the  purpose  of  imposing  a  demo- 
cratic form  of  government  upon  any  people. 
What  makes  the  present  struggle  in  a  real  sense  a 
battle  for  democracy  is  the  fact  that  the  exposure 
of  imperial  designs  has  produced  a  conviction 
that  if  these  designs  should  prove  successful,  de- 
mocracy would  ultimately  be  rendered  impossible 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Confronted  by  a  trium- 
phant imperialism,  self-governing  nations  would 
be  obliged  to  protect  themselves  against  aggres- 
sion by  arming  themselves  to  the  full  extent  of 
their  resources,  and  to  resort  to  a  permanent  cen- 
tralization of  public  powers  that  would  divest 
them  of  their  democratic  character.     Even  with 

the  utmost  precautions  the  weaker  independent 

236 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  237 

states,  if  left  to  defend  themselves  unaided,  would 
eventually  be  compelled  to  yield  to  imperial  domi- 
nation, thus  progressively  augmenting  the  re- 
sources of  arbitrary  power  and  proportionally 
weakening  the  forces  of  the  independent  self-gov- 
erning states.  If,  for  example.  Central  Europe, 
as  conceived  by  Naumann,  should  be  consolidated 
as  the  result  of  the  Great  War,  it  would  be  only  a 
question  of  time  when  not  only  Belgium,  but  Hol- 
land, Switzerland,  the  Scandinavian  kingdoms, 
possibly  France  itself,  and  certainly  the  Balkan 
States,  would  fall  under  imperial  rule.  A  great 
maritime  power,  such  as  would  then  come  into 
existence,  with  naval  stations  on  all  the  sea-coasts 
of  Europe  and  acquired  colonies,  could  proceed 
to  the  conquest  of  the  world.  If  the  Imperial 
German  Government  can  at  present  interrupt  and 
imperil  the  commerce  of  the  Atlantic  and  the 
Mediterranean,  what  might  be  expected  of  it  when 
it  possessed  well-furnished  naval  stations  on  the 
channel  and  the  Adriatic,  not  to  mention  the  wider 
possibilities  ? 

It  was  not,  however,  the  fear  of  German  ex- 
pansion in  Europe  that  induced  the  United  States 


238     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

to  abandon  its  policy  of  neutrality.  So  long  as 
the  war  was  considered  as  a  merely  European 
conflict  of  power,  it  was  to  be  expected,  following 
the  American  tradition  of  non-interference  in 
European  affairs,  that  the  contest  would  be  re- 
garded as  foreign  to  the  interests  of  the  American 
people.  But  in  the  course  of  its  progress  it  came 
to  be  vaguely  realized  that  a  struggle  so  wide- 
spread in  extent  and  so  far  reaching  in  its  conse- 
quences must  profoundly  affect  the  whole  world. 
Even  a  long  succession  of  incredible  outrages 
upon  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  accom- 
panied with  almost  open  interference  with  its  in- 
ternal affairs,  did  not  move  the  American  Govern- 
ment to  abandon  the  resolution  to  remain  neutral, 
nor  did  it  awaken  the  American  people  to  a  full 
realization  of  the  peril  to  which  they  were  ex- 
posed. Hundreds  of  American  men,  women,  and 
children,  innocently  traveling  upon  the  high  seas 
in  the  faith  that  they  were  under  the  protection 
of  laws  and  customs  which  all  nations  had  agreed 
to  respect,  were  mercilessly  slaughtered  under  the 
orders  of  the  Imperial  German  Government. 
Repeated  protests  were  followed  by  the  continued 
destruction  of  non-combatant  lives  and  the  sink- 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  239 

ing  of  ships  without  search  or  warning,  in  viola- 
tion not  only  of  established  laws  of  the  seas,  but 
of  the  principles  embodied  in  treaties  that  had 
been  solemnly  entered  into  and  that  the  Imperial 
Government  insisted  were  still  binding  upon  the 
United  States. 

When  the  American  Government  finally  an- 
nounced that  unless  the  Imperial  Government  was 
disposed  to  conform  to  the  established  rules  of 
international  law,  diplomatic  relations  between 
the  two  countries  must  cease  altogether,  a  promise 
to  pursue  thenceforth  a  legal  course  was  made, 
but  qualified  by  the  demand  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  should  serve  the  purposes  of 
the  Imperial  Government  with  other  powers 
friendly  to  the  United  States.  That  the  restric- 
tion placed  upon  the  devastations  of  submarine 
torpedo-boats  was  intended  to  be  only  temporary, 
and  that  these  devastations  were  intended  to  be 
resumed  when  a  sufficient  number  of  boats  should 
be  constructed  to  become  really  effective  in  sup- 
pressing American  commerce,  is  now  established 
in  a  manner  that  exposes  the  utter  insincerity  of 
the  Imperial  Government  in  all  its  professedly 
friendly  negotiations  with  the  United  States. 


240     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

On  January  24,  1917,  the  Imperial  German 
Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Herr  Zimmermann, 
used  the  following  language  for  publication  in 
the  United  States: 

In  the  message  which  President  Wilson  addressed  to  the 
Senate  (January  22,  1917)  the  Imperial  German  Gov- 
ernment recognizes  with  extreme  satisfaction  the  fact  that 
the  aspirations  and  thoughts  of  the  President  continue  to 
occupy  themselves  with  the  question  of  the  restoration  of 
permanent  peace.  The  exalted  moral  earnestness  in  the 
words  of  the  President  insures  them  an  attentive  ear 
throughout  the  world.  The  Imperial  German  Government 
earnestly  hope  that  the  untiring  efforts  of  the  President  to 
restore  peace  on  earth  may  be  crowned  with  success. 

Apparently  believing  in  "the  exalted  moral 
earnestness"  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
in  his  "untiring  efforts  to  restore  peace  on  earth," 
Herr  Zimmermann,  in  the  midst  of  these  efforts 
for  peace,  was  not  only  meditating  war,  but  £ve 
days  before  using  these  expressions  he  had  com- 
municated by  secret  code  through  the  German 
ambassador  at  Washington  the  following  instruc- 
tion to  the  German  Minister  in  Mexico : 

Berlin,  Jan.   19,  1917. 
On  the  1st  of  February  we  intend  to  begin  submarine 
warfare  unrestricted.     In  spite  of  this,  it  is  our  intention 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  241 

to  endeavor  to  keep  neutral  the  United  States  of  America. 

If  this  attempt  is  not  successful,  we  propose  an  alliance 
on  the  following  basis  with  Mexico.  That  we  shall  make 
war  together  and  together  make  peace.  We  shall  give 
general  financial  support,  and  it  is  understood  that  Mexico 
is  to  reconquer  the  lost  territory  in  New  Mexico,  Texas, 
and  Arizona.     The  details  are  left  to  you  for  settlement. 

You  are  instructed  to  inform  the  President  of  Mexico « 
of  the  above  in  the  greatest  confidence  as  soon  as  it  is 
certain  that  there  will  be  an  outbreak  of  war  with  the 
United  States,  and  suggest  that  the  President  of  Mexico,  on 
his  own  initiative,  should  communicate  with  Japan  sug- 
gesting adherence  at  once  to  this  plan.  At  the  same  time, 
offer  to  mediate  between  Germany  and  Japan. 

Please  call  to  the  attention  of  the  President  of  Mexico 
that  the  employment  of  ruthless  submarine  warfare  now 
promises  to  compel  England  to  make  peace  in  a  few 
months. 

ZiMMERMANN. 

One  week  after  expressing  his  hopes  that  the 
President's  efforts  for  peace  "would  be  crowned 
with  success,"  on  January  31,  the  Imperial  Ger- 
man Government  formally  announced,  as  was  in- 
tended before  and  during  this  whole  period,  that 
on  and  after  February  1  it  would  adopt  a  policy 
of  ruthlessness  in  the  use  of  submarines  against 
all  shipping  seeking  to  pass  through  certain  desig- 
nated areas  of  the  high  seas. 


242     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

This  violation  of  a  previous  agreement  to  ob- 
serve the  rules  of  international  law,  the  Imperial 
German  Government  well  knew  was  equivalent 
to  a  declaration  of  war  upon  the  United  States, 
made  in  the  midst  of  "the  untiring  efforts  of  the 
President  to  restore  peace  on  earth."  It  was  the 
German  way  of  expressing  "hopes"  that  these  ef- 
forts might  "be  crowned  with  success."  The 
pledge  to  observe  the  law  had  lasted  until  hun- 
dreds of  submarine-boats  were  ready  to  perform 
their  task  of  wrecking  the  commerce  of  the  world, 
as  an  essential  preliminary  to  "the  restoration  of 
peace  on  earth"!  The  intention  had  long  been 
kept  a  secret,  which  the  German  proposal  of  peace 
negotiations  had  aided  in  concealing.  On  Janu- 
ary 19  the  Imperial  Foreign  Office  knew  that  this 
vast  flotilla  of  submarines  would  be  ready  by 
February  1,  and  that  its  mission  would  impose 
measures  of  war  upon  all  neutral  nations;  yet 
when  on  February  3  diplomatic  relations  with  the 
Imperial  German  Government  were  severed  by 
the  United  States,  Berlin  naively  professed  to  be 
"astonished"! 

Not  until  April  6,  however,  when  overt  acts  had 
demonstrated  the  fixed  purpose  of  the  Imperial 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  243 

Government  to  sink  American  ships,  was  the 
state  of  war  officially  declared  to  exist. 

It  was  with  truth  that  the  President  said  to  the 
American  people,  ^'The  wrongs  against  which  we 
are  now  arraying  ourselves  are  no  common 
wrongs;  they  cut  to  the  very  roots  of  human  life." 

It  is  German  violence  that,  notwithstanding  our 
peaceable  purposes,  has  made  this  our  war.  That 
the  United  States  would  ultimately  be  involved 
in  it  was  inevitable,  for  it  was  conceived  and  pro- 
moted in  arrogant  contempt  of  everything  for 
which  the  American  people  stand  sponsors.  We 
have  accepted  the  challenge  thrown  down  to  us, 
as  the  President  has  said,  "to  vindicate  the  prin- 
ciples of  peace  and  justice  in  the  life  of  the  world 
as  against  selfish  and  autocratic  power,  and  to  set 
up  among  the  really  free  and  self-governed  peo- 
ples of  the  world  such  a  concert  of  purpose  and  of 
action  as  will  henceforth  insure  the  observance  of 
those  principles." 

It  was  at  last  made  evident  that  geographic  iso- 
lation is  no  longer  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  Ameri- 
can security,  and  that  it  is  with  a  world  problem 
that  we  now  have  to  deal.  Until  this  fact  was  es- 
tablished by  indisputable  evidence,  and  rendered 


244     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

undeniable  by  a  prompt  confession  that  saw  in 
this  hypocrisy  nothing  that  called  for  shame,  few 
of  our  citizens  could  have  believed  that  it  would 
ever  enter  into  the  plans  of  the  Imperial  German 
Government  to  propose  the  dismemberment  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  it  would  even  designate 
and  portion  out  whole  States  as  the  spoils  of  a 
war  of  conquest  to  be  promoted  by  German  gold 
paid  to  mercenary  armies  under  the  command  of 
German  officers,  as  the  forces  of  the  Ottoman  Em- 
pire are  already  commanded  by  them,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  rendering  the  will  of  Germany  supreme 
through  the  conquest  of  Europe  and  the  mastery 
of  the  sea. 

Fortunately,  this  secret  purpose  was  disclosed 
in  time  to  lay  bare  at  a  critical  moment  the  real 
attitude  of  the  Imperial  Government  toward  the 
United  States,  and  thus  to  reveal  to  the  American 
people  unmistakably  the  degeneration  of  the 
Prussian  official  mind.  Happily,  also,  both  the 
Japanese  and  the  Mexican  governments  were  re- 
sentful of  the  insult  offered  to  them  by  the  infamy 
of  this  proposal.  Even  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  whose  racial  affinities  led  them  at  first  to 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  245 

sympathize  with  the  German  cause  on  account  of 
their  belief  in  the  moral  soundness  of  the  German 
people  must  now  realize  how  cruelly  they  them- 
selves, as  well  as  their  friends  in  Germany,  have 
been  deceived  by  the  sophistications  of  the  Im- 
perial Government's  propaganda,  which  has 
everywhere  made  appeal  to  race  prejudice  and 
sordid  interest,  but  never  to  the  noble  humanism 
that  was  once  esteemed  characteristic  of  German 
thought. 

The  evidence  that  the  motives  of  the  Imperial 
German  Government  are  unscrupulous,  preda- 
tory, and  ruthless  has  become  overwhelming.  Its 
conspiracies  envelop  the  world.  They  have  been 
directed  under  the  mask  of  friendship  by  official 
diplomacy  on  our  own  soil.  They  lay  under 
tribute  every  quarter  of  the  globe  and  seek  part- 
ners in  crime  in  both  hemispheres.  Such  a  power 
is  the  enemy  of  all  mankind.  At  last  the  Ameri- 
can people  have  come  to  understand  this ;  but  they 
have  not,  perhaps,  even  yet  fully  appreciated  how 
America  will  be  affected  by  the  fate  of  Europe, 
for  the  fate  of  Europe  will  determine  the  fate  of 
the  world. 


246     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  said: 

"We  have  no  quarrel  with  the  German  people.  We 
have  no  feeling  toward  them  but  one  of  sympathy  and 
friendship.  It  was  not  upon  their  impulse  that  their 
Government  acted  in  entering  the  war.  It  was  not  with 
their  previous  knowledge  or  approval. 

There  is  a  commendable  spirit  of  fairness  in 
these  words;  yet  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that 
the  German  people  are  not  without  responsibility 
for  the  war  and  for  its  consequences.  It  is  an 
error  to  suppose  that  the  population  of  Germany 
is  the  victim  of  a  system  of  oppression  against 
which  the  people  are  in  a  state  of  mental  revolt, 
that  they  do  not  sympathize  with  their  Govern- 
ment, or  that  if  they  could,  they  would  overthrow 
it  as  the  people  of  Russia  have  overthrown  the 
Romanoff  autocracy.  The  German  people  have 
profited  greatly  in  an  economic  sense  from  the 
creation  of  the  empire;  they  believe  in  a  strong 
government,  and  they  have  passively  accepted 
without  protest  the  Prussian  domination.  What 
may  be  called  the  directing  class — the  class  that 
shapes  and  controls  what  passes  for  "public  opin- 
ion" in  Germany — is  virtually  unanimous  in  its 
support  of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty,  and  it  has 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  247 

its  own  reasons  for  this  devotion,  for  the  emperor 
is  a  generous  dispenser  of  honors,  which  Ger- 
mans especially  enjoy,  and  even  has  it  in  his  power 
to  give  financial  credit  as  well  as  public  position 
to  those  whom  he  wishes  to  favor.  The  army  and 
navy  have  come  to  be  recognized  constituents  of 
the  industrial  and  commercial  system  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire  to  a  degree  that  has  no  parallel  in 
any  other  country.  They  are  regarded  as  the 
tentacles  of  foreign  trade,  the  prehensile  forces 
of  national  expansion.  Add  to  this  that  every 
able-bodied  male  in  Germany  is  trained  for  war, 
and  taught  that  it  is  a  ^'biological  necessity,"  and 
it  becomes,  perhaps,  possible  to  comprehend  why 
the  Imperial  German  Government  has  had — and 
so  long  as  its  plans  bring  success  will  probably 
continue  to  have — in  whatever  it  does  the  support 
of  the  German  nation.  Nothing  but  evident  fail- 
ure to  realize  its  projects  of  annexation  and  to 
satisfy  the-  ambitions  of  the  directing  class  can 
destroy  its  hold  upon  the  country. 

There  is  in  Germany  a  residue  of  feudalism 
that  exists  to  the  same  degree  nowhere  else  in 
Europe.  In  matters  of  public  interest  the  Prus- 
sian peasant  is  mere  clay  in  the  hands  of  his 


248     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Junker  master.  As  much  as  possible — and  his 
grinding  toil  renders  the  task  easy — he  is  kept  in 
ignorance  of  politics.  To  his  simple  mind  the 
kaiser  acts,  as  he  professes  to  act,  under  divine 
direction,  and  all  the  peasant's  religious  convic- 
tions and  emotions  thus  become  imperial  property. 
As  a  soldier  he  is  a  cheerful  automaton,  ready  to 
' 'goose-step"  anywhere  the  command  is  given  him 
to  go.  As  a  citizen  he  is  nil.  When  he  votes  he 
takes  his  cue  from  ''die  Herrschaften/'  as  he  ob- 
sequiously calls  his  superiors. 

In  the  cities  the  industrial  workers  and  their 
leaders  have  developed  a  keen  interest  in  political 
matters,  but  their  political  ideas  are  frequently 
nebulous  and  always  largely  theoretical,  though 
often  accompanied  by  brave  and  honest  convic- 
tions for  the  most  part  suppressed.  These  are  the 
elements  from  which  are  formed  the  Social  Demo- 
crats. Occasionally  the  inner  consciousness  of 
these  men  overflows  in  public  utterance,  some- 
times in  the  Reichstag  itself,  as  when  Karl  Lieb- 
knecht  said  on  December  2,  1914: 

I  refuse  the  war  credits  demanded,  at  the  same  time 
protesting  against  the  war,  those  responsible  for  it  and 
directing  it,  against  the  capitalist  policy  which  has  in- 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  249 

cited  it,  against  the  capitalist  designs  which  it  pursues, 
against  the  plans  of  annexation,  against  the  violation  of 
Belgian  and  Luxemburg  neutrality,  against  the  military 
dictatorship,  against  the  forgetfulness  of  social  and  politi- 
cal duty  of  which  the  Government  and  the  directing  classes 
still  at  this  time  render  themselves  culpable. 

For  this  attitude  Liebknecht,  though  a  member 
of  the  Reichstag,  was  sent  to  prison,  and  the  text 
of  his  speech  was  never  printed  by  the  German 
newspapers.  Those  venturing  to  print  it  would 
have  been  suppressed. 

This  violation  of  parliamentary  immunity  in 
England,  in  France,  or  in  the  United  States  would 
of  itself  occasion  a  popular  uprising.  In  Ger- 
many it  sealed  the  lips  of  thousands  who  believed 
as  Liebknecht  did.  "We  are  not,  as  you  are,  in 
the  habit  of  reckoning  with  public  opinion,"  said 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  younger  men 
in  official  life  in  Germany.  "With  us  it  does  not 
count  for  anything.  Opinion  has  never  had  any 
effect  on  policy.  It  resembles  rather  the  chorus 
of  antiquity,  which  looks  on  and  comments  upon 
an  action  unfolding  around  it.  I  should  compare 
it,"  he  concludes,  "to  a  crowd  that  follows,  but  is 
not  admitted  to  the  game." 


250     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

There  is,  of  course,  a  difference  between  active 
aggressors  and  those  who,  without  discriminating 
between  their  actions,  give  them  loyal  support. 
But  it  is  the  consequences  rather  than  the  motives 
of  a  national  attitude  with  which  other  nations 
have  to  deal.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  German 
people  continue  to  support  a  war  which  their  own 
directing  class  in  moments  of  frank  utterance  con- 
fesses to  be  predatory,  and  still  continues  to  advo- 
cate, the  rest  of  the  world  must  treat  them  as 
enemies  not  less  than  the  Government  which  de- 
rives its  strength  from  their  support. 

What  then  is  the  testimony  of  the  Germans 
themselves  regarding  their  aims  and  ambitions  in 
this  war?  In  a  book  of  more  than  four  hundred 
octavo  pages,  the  Swiss  publicist  Grumbach  has 
collected  "Documents  Published  or  Secretly  Cir- 
culated in  Germany  Since  August  4,  1914,"  bear- 
ing upon  the  annexation  of  conquered  territory. 
In  his  preface  he  declares,  "No  competent  person 
can  dispute  the  fact  that  the  war  aims  of  Germany 
are  of  a  nature  to  cause  the  greatest  anxiety  to  the 
entire  world." 

Although  the  Imperial  Government  avoids  as 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  251 

much  as  possible  committing  itself  to  any  definite 
declaration  of  policy,  it  allows  and  even  encour- 
ages a  popular  demand  for  annexations  and  in- 
demnities. Men  of  every  party,  of  every  class, 
and  of  every  profession  possessing  influence  in 
public  affairs  in  Germany,  have  constantly  voiced 
the  demand  for  annexations  which  the  Pan-Ger- 
manist  literature  had  made  before  the  war  and 
often  in  the  same  terms.  The  expectations  of 
spoils  which  rendered  the  war  popular  in  Ger- 
many in  the  beginning  have  during  every  stage 
of  its  progress  taken  the  form  of  urgency  that 
they  be  realized  at  its  close. 

Not  knowing  just  how  the  war  will  end,  the 
Imperial  Government  dares  not  promise  too  much, 
but  it  does  not  hesitate  to  keep  alive  a  popular  ap- 
proval of  any  conquests  which  the  forces  at  its 
disposal  may  eventually  enable  it  to  make. 
"Compare,"  writes  Grumbach,  "the  passivity 
which  the  authorities  manifested  when  the  Six 
Great  Industrial  and  Agrarian  Leagues  circu- 
lated their  famous  annexationist  petition  without 
encountering  the  least  obstacle,  with  the  confisca- 
tion at  the  moment  of  its  publication  of  the  peti- 
tion of  the  anti-annexationist  league  Neues  Vater- 


252     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

land,  intended  as  a  reply,"  followed  by  the  grad- 
ual strangling  of  the  anti-annexationist  league  un- 
der police  surveillance,  and  the  imprisonment  of 
its  secretary. 

It  is  important  also  to  note  that  the  territory 
now  claimed  for  annexation  in  the  West  is  even 
in  excess  of  that  marked  out  for  conquest  by  the 
Pan-German  writers  in  1911.  "In  the  interest 
of  our  own  existence,"  says  the  petition,  "we  ought 
to  enfeeble  France  politically  and  economically, 
without  scruple,  and  to  render  our  military  and 
strategic  situation  more  favorable  with  regard  to 
it.  We  are  convinced  that,  to  secure  that  end,  a 
serious  correction  of  our  whole  Western  frontier, 
from  Belfort  to  the  coast,  is  necessary.  We  ought 
to  do  everything  possible  to  conquer  a  part  of  the 
French  coast,  from  the  North  to  the  Pas-de-Calais, 
in  order  to  be  assured  from  a  strategic  point  of 
view  against  England,  and  to  possess  a  better  ap- 
proach to  the  ocean."  The  German  scientific  ex- 
perts, it  is  explained  by  one  of  the  commentators 
on  this  extension  of  the  frontier,  were  not  aware  in 
1871  of  the  vast  treasures  of  coal  and  iron  that 
they  had  failed  to  claim ! 

The  territory  now  demanded  includes:  in  the 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  253 

West,  the  whole  of  Belgium  and  the  frontier  terri- 
tories of  France,  that  is  to  say,  the  part  of  the 
coast  almost  to  the  Somme,  with  a  hinterland  as- 
suring the  complete  economic  and  strategic  ex- 
ploitation of  a  port  on  the  Channel,  the  iron-mine 
fields  of  Briey,  the  frontier  fortresses  with  the 
lines  of  the  Meuse,  especially  Verdun  and  Bel- 
fort,  with  the  watershed  west  of  the  Vosges,  be- 
tween Verdun  and  Belfort;  on  the  East,  "at  least" 
parts  of  the  Baltic  provinces  and  the  territories  to 
the  South,  in  such  a  manner  that  the  new  acquisi- 
tions would  protect  first  of  all  the  present  Prus- 
sian provinces  the  whole  length  of  the  frontiers  of 
Eastern  Prussia,  and  also  the  length  of  the  fron- 
tiers of  Western  Prussia,  of  Posnania,  and  of 
Silesia. 

To  secure  these  advantages  the  six  leagues 
stated  in  their  manifesto  that  they  did  not  desire 
a  "premature  peace";  for,  "from  such  a  peace," 
the  petition  runs,  "one  could  not  expect  a  suffi- 
cient fruit  of  victory"! 

But,  in  addition  to  the  defined  areas  of  con- 
quest, there  are  certain  indefinite  aspirations  here 
set  forth,  "if  it  be  possible  to  realize  them"! 
These  include  "a  colonial  empire  which  would 


254     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

fully  satisfy  the  manifold  economic  interests  of 
Germany,  besides  guarantees  for  our  commercial 
future  and  the  securing  of  a  sufficient  war  indem- 
nity, paid  in  an  appropriate  form." 

This  definition  of  what  the  war  is  really  for, 
prepared  in  May,  1915,  is  signed  by  representa- 
tives of  the  League  of  Agriculturists,  the  League 
of  German  Peasants,  the  Directing  Group  of  the 
Christian  Associations  of  German  Peasants,  the 
Central  Group  of  German  Industrials,  the  League 
of  Industrials,  and  the  Union  of  the  Middle 
Classes  of  the  Empire,  these  being  the  six  largest 
and  most  powerful  economic  groups  in  Germany. 
It  is  not  pretended  in  this  petition  that  the  results 
demanded  have  already  been  brought  within  the 
power  of  the  Imperial  Government.  It  is  a  pro- 
gram of  aims  to  be  achieved  before  the  war  closes, 
and  a  confessed  enlargement  of  the  purposes  with 
which  it  was  begun.  "These  exigencies,"  it  ex- 
pressly states,  "it  is  needless  to  say,  depend  upon 
the  possibility  that  the  army  may  realize  them." 

The  reasons  for  these  additional  conquests  are 
not  that  Belgium  and  France  have  forfeited  these 
territories  by  making  an  attack  upon  Germany. 
The  iron-  and  coal-fields  specified  are  said  to  be 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  255 

'indispensable  not  only  for  the  existence  of  our 
industrial  power,  but  they  constitute  military  ne- 
cessities"; that  is,  they  are  desired  as  new  bases 
for  future  military  activity.  It  is  pointed  out 
that  "neutral  industrial  States  are  constrained  to 
make  themselves  the  tools  of  that  one  of  the  bel- 
ligerents that  can  assure  them  a  supply  of  coal." 
By  possessing  all  the  coal  in  Western  Europe, 
Germany  can  better  exercise  that  restraint.  Ger- 
many, it  is  urged,  has  already  been  "obliged  to 
have  recourse  to  the  Belgian  production,  in  order 
to  prevent  our  neutral  neighbors  from  becoming 
dependent  on  England."  Besides,  in  Belgium, 
it  is  explained,  are  found  also  "the  fundamental 
elements  of  our  principal  explosives" ;  and  "ben- 
zol, the  only  substitute  for  benzine,  which  we  lack, 
and  this  is  indispensable  for  submarines." 

For  these  reasons  Belgium  and  Northwestern 
France  must  belong  to  Germany.  The  native 
populations  of  these  districts,  it  is  insisted,  "shall 
not  be  put  in  a  position  to  obtain  a  political  influ- 
ence upon  the  destinies  of  the  German  Empire." 
It  is  also  urged  that  "the  existing  means  of  eco- 
nomic power  in  these  territories,  including  the 
medium  and  the  great  properties,  shall  be  placed 


256     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

in  the  hands  of  Germans,  in  a  manner  that  shall 
require  France  to  indemnify  and  recall  the  pro- 
prietors" I 

Were  these  encouragements  to  depredation  and 
conquest  merely  the  spontaneous  expression  of  the 
desires  of  these  signatories,  or  were  they  indirectly 
inspired  by  the  Imperial  Government  itself,  with 
a  view  to  making  its  conduct  seem  like  the  exe- 
cution of  a  popular  mandate?  It  is  impossible 
conclusively  to  answer  this  question ;  but  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Imperial  Government  is  certainly  not 
one  of  hostility  to  the  most  extreme  of  these  de- 
mands. The  emperor,  whose  stake  in  this  game 
is  the  greatest  of  all,  is  the  least  definite  in  state- 
ment ;  but  his  words  might  be  interpreted  as  ultra- 
annexationist  if  circumstances  should  make  that 
course  seem  expedient.  He  has  expressed  his  de- 
sire for  "a  peace  which  would  offer  us  the  military, 
political,  and  economic  guarantees  of  which  we 
have  need  for  the  future,  and  which  would  fulfil 
all  the  conditions  necessary  to  a  free  employment 
af  our  creative  forces,  at  home  as  well  as  upon  the 
sea."  The  King  of  Bavaria  expressly  wishes  "a 
gate  of  exit  direct  from  the  Rhine  to  the  sea," 
with  "an  enlargement  of  the  Empire  beyond  its 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  257 

present  frontiers."  The  Duke  of  Mecklenburg 
demands  ^'a  powerful  colonial  empire  in  Africa, 
and  a  sufficient  number  of  solid  points  d'appui 
on  the  terrestrial  globe  for  our  marine  and  our 
commerce,  coaling  stations  and  stations  for  wire- 
less telegraphy."  The  former  imperial  chan- 
cellor, Bethmann-Hollweg,  shrewdly  limits  his 
expectations  to  "all  the  powers  and  all  the  real 
guarantees  possible";  but  these,  he  insists,  "must 
secure  for  Germany  a  position  unshakably 
strong."  The  secretary  for  colonies,  Dr.  Solf, 
wishes  the  empire  "to  possess  colonies  in  all  the 
climatic  zones,  but  without  prejudice  to  possible 
territorial  gains  in  Europe."  The  Prussian  min- 
ister of  the  interior,  Loebell,  thinks,  "The  Ger- 
man empire  ought  to  open  a  road  by  fire  and  blood 
to  the  point  where  it  may  fulfil  its  mission  of 
world  politics." 

In  the  same  spirit,  but  often  much  more  defi- 
nitely, speak  innumerable  privy  counsellors,  mem- 
bers of  the  Reichstag,  university  professors,  mili- 
tary officers,  diplomatists,  and  pastors,  whose 
views  are  repeated  and  generally  applauded  by 
the  press,  with  the  exception  of  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic organs,  from  the  daily  newspapers  to  the 


258     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

serious  reviews.  The  evidence  is  absolutely  over- 
whelming that  from  the  first  months  of  the  war 
the  directing  classes  of  Germany  have  been  eager 
for  territorial  conquests. 

In  order  to  give  s6me  appearance  of  justice  to 
these  plans  for  imperial  expansion  at  the  expense 
of  'Belgium  and  France,  the  legend  of  a  * 'con- 
spiracy" to  attack  Germany  and  destroy  her,  of 
which  England  is  charged  with  being  the  insti- 
gator, and  France,  Belgium,  and  Russia  the  eager 
instruments,  has  been  persistently  propagated  in 
Germany  and  in  the  United  States.  As  a  penalty, 
runs  the  legend,  far  bringing  this  dreadful  scourge 
of  war  upon  peace-loving  Germany,  these  guilty 
nations  must  repay  her  for  the  terrible  sacrifices 
made  by  her  brave  sons  and  loyal  subjects,  who 
have  given  their  lives  and  their  treasures  for  the 
defense  of  the  Fatherland.  Not  only  territories, 
but  money  indemnities,  are  expected;  and  these 
last  the  imperial  chancellor,  as  late  as  February 
27,  1917,  asserted  are  "necessary."  This  Gov- 
ernment, which  declared  war  on  Russia  and 
France;  which  ordered  the  invasion  of  Belgium; 
which  authorized  Austria-Hungary  to  subjugate 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  259 

Serbia;  which  in  July,  1914,  rejected  the  pro- 
posals of  Serbia  and  the  Czar  to  submit  the  Aus- 
tro-Serbian  question  to  the  Hague  Tribunal; 
which  has  ruined  and  depopulated  Belgium,  an- 
nihilated Serbia,  and  devastated  Poland, — this 
Government  expects  "indemnities  for  the  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  Germany";  and,  to  give  this  ex- 
tortion a  color  of  justice,  holds  these  countries  up 
as  the  guilty  culprits ! 

Note,  for  example,  the  attempt  to  heap  calum- 
nies upon  Belgium  for  acting  in  self-defense. 
"Deputy  Hirsch  [Social  Democrat],"  cries  the 
National-Liberal  deputy.  Dr.  Friedberg,  in  the 
Prussian  Landtag,  in  January,  1916, — "Deputy 
Hirsch  desires  that  the  political  and  economic  in- 
dependence of  Belgium  be  restored.  But  we  have 
no  right  to  forget  that  Belgium  was  in  no  respect 
the  neutral  country  it  appeared  to  he  on  August 
2,  1914'' !  And  so  a  man  who  has  been  assas- 
sinated in  his  bed  is  to  have  his  house  plundered 
because  it  was  discovered  during  the  murder  that 
he  had  tried  to  make  previous  arrangements  with 
his  neighbors  for  his  protection  against  this  very 
crime ! 

Germany,  it  is  said,  did  not  desire  war.     But 


260     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

listen  to  Major-General  Von  Gebsattel,  an  emi- 
nent soldier-diplomat,  who  is  not  afraid  to  confess 
the  truth  to  his  fellow-officers.  In  October,  1915, 
he  said: 

We  have  not  wished  the  war  to  try  seriously  this  time  the 
efficiency  of  our  quick-firing  cannons  and  our  machine- 
guns — of  that  we  had  a  very  exact  idea,  particularly  we 
old  soldiers; — ^we  wished  it  because  we  understood  our 
people  were  on  the  wrong  road  in  their  development,  be- 
cause we  considered  the  war  a  necessity,  and  because  we 
were  besides  aware  that  a  war  is  easier — as  much  in  its 
military  course  as  for  its  minimum  of  sacrifices — when 
a  people,  in  every  fashion  constrained  to  struggle  for  its 
existence,  is  more  resolute  and  more  prompt  to  choose  the 
moment  favorable  for  aggression. 

Here  is  no  attempt  to  conceal  the  fact  that  the 
present  war  was  not  only  desired  by  the  German 
officers,  but  that  the  time  for  it  was  opportunely 
chosen,  yet  not  without  serious  miscalculations, 
and  the  whole  progress  of  the  war  has  shown  how 
groundless  and  how  ignoble  the  accusation  of  an 
international  conspiracy  is. 

Realizing  the  futility  of  the  conspiracy  legend, 
the  theologian  Mumm,  a  Christian-Socialist 
deputy  to  the  Reichstag,  in  the  Berliner  Neueste 
Nachrichten,  recommends  that  the  conquest  be 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  261 

justified  to  the  Germans  and  to  the  world  by  show- 
ing that  historically,  at  some  time  in  the  past, 
Belgium — which  he  describes  as  "a  mere  poli- 
tical concept  due  to  chance  and  the  pis-aller  of 
embarrassed  diplomats" — and  the  other  coveted 
lands  were  once  parts  of  the  German  Empire. 
*'Dip  into  the  past,"  he  urges,  *'in  order  to  write 
that  which  should  be  known  at  present :  the  read- 
ers will  understand  well  what  inferences  to  draw, 
when  it  is  not  possible  to  expose  them  openly.'^ 
A  truly  ingenious  method  of  concealing  a  cold- 
blooded national  crime! 

In  some  quarters  it  is  considered  almost  trea- 
sonable to  the  empire  to  question  the  rectitude  of 
forcible  annexation.  Calling  to  account  the 
former  secretary  for  the  colonies.  Dr.  Bernhard 
Dernburg,  for  assuring  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  where  he  was  on  mission  in  May,  1915, 
that  the  promise  of  the  imperial  chancellor  to  re- 
store the  independence  of  Belgium  after  the  war 
would  be  kept,  the  Tdgliche  Rundschau  declared 
for  home  consumption:  *Tf  Herr  Dernburg  has 
really  offered  to  our  enemies — or  the  same  as 
enemies — the  voluntary  evacuation  of  Belgium, 
that  would  be  an  unheard-of  audacity,  against 


262     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

which  it  would  be  necessary  to  direct  the  most 
vehement  protest.  If  he  has,  in  fact,  said  that 
Germany  cannot  think  of  increasing  its  territory 
in  Europe,  that  would  be  on  his  part  an  extraordi- 
nary presumption! "  And  the  Leipziger  Neueste 
Nachrichten,  ridiculing  the  statement  attributed 
to  Dr.  Dernburg  that  Germany  would  not  forcibly 
subjugate  neighboring  peoples,  doubts  that  he 
really  made  such  a  statement;  for,  it  declares, 
^'such  a  criterion  would  put  an  end  to  all  political 
development  and  to  all  colonization." 

The  orthodox  German  doctrine  on  that  sub- 
ject, it  seems,  was  stated  by  the  chief  of  the  Na- 
tional-Liberal party,  Herr  Bassermann,  as  early 
as  December,  1914,  when  he  said  in  the  Reich- 
stag: ^'We  shall  hold  till  the  most  remote  future 
the  countries  fertilized  by  German  blood.  .  .  . 
We  shall  be  able  to  keep  what  we  have  acquired, 
and  to  acquire  in  addition  that  of  which  we  have 
need." 

But  we  do  not  reach  the  final  formula  of  Ger- 
man tribal  ambition  until  we  have  received  it 
from  the  chief  of  the  Free  Conservative  party  in 
the  Prussian  Landtag,  Herr  Zedlitz-Neukirch. 
He  said : 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  263 

If  the  peace  we  aim  at  is  to  be  durable,  all  the  ter- 
ritorial acquisitions  which  the  General  Staff  deems  neces- 
sary to  shield  us  from  the  danger  of  a  future  war  must 
be  secured  by  that  peace;  and  no  regard  for  our  adver- 
saries, their  country,  or  their  people,  should  prevent  our  im- 
posing these  conditions,  least  of  all  the  so-called  right  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  territories  that  are  to  be  conquered 
to  dispose  of  themselves. 

The  purposes  for  which  the  war  was  begun 
having  failed  of  accomplishment  through  an  un- 
expected obstinacy  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the 
Entente  Allies,  the  problem  of  negotiating  a  peace 
has  become  a  serious  one  for  the  Imperial  Ger- 
man Government.  Not  to  make  any  annexations 
or  collect  any  indemnities  beyond  the  levies  ex- 
torted from  Belgium  and  Poland  during  military 
occupation,  would  signify  a  defeat  of  the  Ger- 
man plans.  To  this  kind  of  a  settlement  all 
those  responsible  for  the  war  quite  naturally  ob- 
ject, and  desire  no  relinquishment  of  territory 
occupied  and  no  abatement  of  f rightfulness,  in 
the  hope  that  the  Allies  may  soon  be  disunited  or 
exhausted,  thus  leaving  Germany  the  victor. 
The  Hohenzollern  dynasty,  having  taken  the  re- 
sponsibility of  this  vast  predatory  enterprise, 
cannot,  however,  save  its  face  without  showing 


264     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

some  justification  for  the  ''sacrifices"  imposed 
upon  the  people  of  Germany.  So  long  as  the 
Allies  continue  their  opposition,  this  embarrass- 
ment will  endure;  and  in  the  meantime  two 
changes  are  occurring  in  the  minds  of  the  German 
people:  a  growing  weariness  of  the  war  as  a  re- 
sult of  exhaustion,  and  a  gradual  enlightenment 
regarding  the  responsibility  for  a  war  which  the 
mass  of  the  German  people  believed  at  its  begin- 
ning was  forced  upon  the  empire  by  a  combina- 
tion of  hostile  powers.  As  a  result,  the  desire 
for  peace  even  without  annexations  and  indem- 
nities at  first  insisted  upon  by  a  group  of  Social 
Democrats  is  rapidly  becoming  the  sentiment  of 
the  country,  with  the  exception  of  the  Junker 
class  and  the  military  and  industrial  imperialists, 
whose  very  existence  as  a  dominating  caste  in 
the  empire  depends  upon  the  continued  alliance 
of  private  business  with  dynastic  and  military 
power.  Between  these  instigators  of  predatory 
war  and  the  peace-loving  people  of  Germany  the 
former  imperial  chancellor,  Bethmann-Hollweg, 
anxious  to  save  the  dynasty,  hesitated  to  formulate 
the  Imperial  Government's  terms  of  peace,  and 
to  the  end  of  his  administration  he  adhered  to 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  265 

his  ambiguous  formula,  ''All  the  pawns  and  all 
the  real  guarantees  possible." 

The  embarrassment  is  not,  and  is  not  likely 
to  be,  greatly  relieved  by  changes  in  the  persons 
holding  office  under  the  house  of  Hohenzollern. 
The  aims  and  interests  always  remain  the  same, 
and  the  naming  by  the  emperor  of  new  ministers 
serves  only  to  postpone  the  real  issues  of  reform 
and  the  definition  of  policy.  It  means  little  that 
the  Reichstag  has  by  a  large  majority  declared, 
''We  are  driven  by  no  lust  of  conquest,"  or  that 
it  professes  to  repudiate  "forced  acquisitions  of 
territory  and  political,  economic,  and  financial 
violations,"  for  the  Reichstag  is  not  the  Imperial 
German  Government.  On  the  contrary,  it  has 
again  and  again  vindicated  its  title  to  be  called 
a  "hall  of  echoes."  Installed  in  the  seat  of  power 
by  the  military  party,  the  successor  of  Bethmann- 
Hollweg,  Dr.  Michaelis,  speaking  with  all  the 
authority  of  the  emperor  in  what  the  family  coun- 
cils have  decided  to  be  the  interest  of  the  dynasty, 
has  said,  "The  constitutional  rights  of  the  head 
of  the  Empire  must  not  be  endangered,  and  I  am 
not  willing  to  permit  any  one  to  take  the  reins 
out  of  my  hands." 


266     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

Impotent  as  the  Reichstag  may  be  as  an  ex- 
pression of  the  will  of  the  German  people,  one 
fact  is  evident,  and  is  of  the  highest  importance: 
the  Imperial  Government  is  confronted  with  a 
greater  problem  in  the  making  of  peace  than  it 
has  ever  had  to  face  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
war.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  Imperial 
Government  can  no  longer  conceal  the  alliance 
between  predatory  business  and  military  power 
which  brought  on  the  war. 

Between  the  demand  on  the  one  side  that  the 
real  objects  of  the  war  be  fulfilled  by  annexa- 
tions, and  on  the  other  that  the  professions  of 
the  Imperial  Government  that  it  was  purely  de- 
fensive be  established  in  the  making  of  peace, 
the  house  of  Hohenzollern  is  loaded  with  a  heavy 
responsibility.  It  cannot  safely  disappoint 
the  alliance  between  the  army  and  the  preda- 
tory class;  and  it  cannot  conveniently  confess  to 
the  loyal  subjects  who  have  believed  its  profes- 
sions and  been  brought  to  the  brink  of  ruin  by 
the  war,  that  it  has  deliberately  deceived  them. 
Yet  this  is  the  choice  that  lies  before  it. 

The  peril  of  the  situation  is  frankly  confessed 
by  at  least  one  German  statesman  of  the  highest 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  267 

character,  Prince  Alexander  von  Hohenlohe. 
His  wise  and  brave  utterances  are  worthy  of  the 
son  of  the  imperial  German  chancellor,  who  in 
1899,  during  the  first  Hague  Conference — at  the 
instance  of  the  American  ambassador  at  Berlin 
and  first  delegate  to  the  conference,  Hon.  Andrew 
D.  White,  who  sent  a  messenger  to  Berlin  for  the 
purpose — warned  the  emperor  of  the  lasting  in- 
jury he  would  inflict  upon  Germany  if  he  al- 
lowed the  German  delegates  to  block  the  pro- 
posals for  the  formation  of  an  international 
tribunal, — as  they  had  been  instructed  to  do, — 
and  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  reluctant  with- 
drawal of  open  opposition. 

Prince  von  Hohenlohe,  with  similar  foresight, 
takes  the  ground  that  jockeying  for  spoils  of  war, 
instead  of  frankly  stating  Germany's  desire  for 
peace,  is  a  shortsighted  policy.  He  holds  that 
for  the  German  people,  as  for  all  others,  the 
highest  and  the  only  true  reward  for  the  sac- 
rifices made  in  the  war  is  the  assurance  of  an  en- 
during peace;  and  such  a  peace  cannot  be  based 
on  the  spoils  of  war  which  Chancellor  von  Beth- 
mann-Hollweg  and  his  successor  are  hoping  to 
secure,  but  must  be  founded  upon  a  just  and  hon- 


268     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

orable  settlement  which  will  leave  behind  it  no 
sentiments  of  future  revenge.  Nothing,  he  holds, 
could  in  reality  so  strengthen  the  empire,  within 
as  well  as  without,  as  the  establishment  of  such  a 
peace. 

The  German  people,  he  believes,  when  fully 
instructed,  will  draw  the  proper  lessons  from  the 
war.  It  may  be  well  for  them,  he  thinks,  to  real- 
ize that  their  own  government  was  in  the  first 
place  responsible  for  the  war;  but,  he  contends, 
they  will  not  permit  foreign  interference  in  their 
political  organization. 

It  required  more  than  ordinary  courage  for 
the  prince  to  say  publicly,  in  reply  to  the  clerical 
deputy,  Spahn: 

Without  doubt,  the  majority  of  the  German  nation  is 
still  monarchist.  The  different  peoples  of  Germany  still 
hold  to  their  princes,  more  or  less,  according  to  the  in- 
dividual character  of  the  sovereigns.  But  that  confidence 
in  the  supreme  chief  of  the  Empire  is  still  entirely  intact 
is  an  affirmation  which,  after  three  years  of  war,  cannot 
be  maintained.  .  .  .  Confidence  in  the  direction  of  the  Em- 
pire has  begun  to  disappear  among  the  German  people. 
.  .  .  They  begin  to  ask  themselves  how  it  happens  that 
nearly  all  the  world  is  in  arms  against  us,  and  who  is 
responsible  for  it. 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  269 

With  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  German 
masses  toward  terms  of  peace,  the  prince  pro- 
ceeds to  say : 

The  German  people  as  a  whole  do  not  demand  the 
annexation  of  foreign  territories.  Only  little  groups  of  in- 
dustrials and  the  superheated  Pan-Germans,  who  are  not 
recruited  from  the  masses  of  the  population,  but  from  the 
circles  of  professors,  functionaries,  and  burghers,  desire 
annexations.  Herr  Scheidemann  has  been  called  to  or- 
der because  he  pronounced  the  word  "Revolution"  from  the 
tribune  in  the  Reichstag.  And  yet  he  has  only  repeated 
what  may  be  heard  every  day  on  the  street.  He  also 
added,  "We  have  not  yet  arrived  at  that  point."  But  it 
would  be  puerile  to  dissimulate  what  might  come  of  it, 
if  the  men  who  hold  in  their  hands  the  destinies  of  the 
German  Empire  are  not  of  sufficient  proportions  to  carry 
the  responsibilities  that  are  placed  upon  them,  to  recognize 
the  necessities  of  the  new  times,  and  to  take  account  of 
them.  In  that  case  the  moment  might  well  come  when 
they  would  recognize  with  terror  that  it  is  too  late,  and 
that  the  German  people  have  finally  lost  patience. 

While  the  war  lasts  it  will  be  difficult  for  any 
German  to  oppose  the  Imperial  Government,  but 
it  is  evident  that  there  are  in  Germany  inevitable 
tendencies  toward  profound  political  changes. 
The  nature  and  extent  of  these  will  depend  largely 
upon  the  results  of  the  war.     If  the  Allies  were 


270     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

overcome  or  disunited,  the  triumph  of  autocracy 
would  be  complete.  No  one  in  Germany  could 
resist  the  effect  of  victorious  armies  returning  in 
triumph  from  the  field  and  a  peace  dictated  by 
successful  imperialism.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
house  of  Hohenzollern  is  preparing  for  a  different 
contingency.  The  emperor,  always  sensitive  to 
deep-seated  popular  movements,  notwithstanding 
his  strident  proclamations  that  his  royal  preroga- 
tives are  ^'from  God  alone,"  has  already  pro- 
posed ^'a  people's  kingdom  of  the  Hohenzollerns," 
in  the  faith,  it  would  appear,  that  a  right  con- 
ferred by  the  people  might  be  better  than  none 
at  all,  and  with  a  growing  suspicion  that  the 
people,  in  the  end,  if  the  armies  are  beaten,  will 
be  more  powerful  than  he  has  supposed  them 
to  be.  In  that  case,  it  would  be  as  expedient  to 
disavow  new  ministers  as  it  was  to  end  the  tight- 
rope performance  of  Bethmann-Hollweg.  The 
negotiations  for  reform  would  have  only  to  be  re- 
sumed, for  this  house  of  Hohenzollern  is  a  shrewd 
race  of  traders,  which  from  a  Swabian  lordship 
over  a  village  of  peasants  has  known  how  to  raise 
itself  to  the  eminence  of  empire  by  an  alterna- 
tion of  bloodshed  and  bargain,  and  would  per- 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  271 

haps  rather  reign  by  the  will  of  the  people  than 
to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Romanoff  retire- 
ment. 

With  what  ease  in  an  extremity  the  Imperial 
Government  might  carry  on  negotiations  for  '^a 
people's  kingdom  of  the  Ilohenzollerns"  is  illus- 
trated by  the  interest  taken  when  the  same  Herr 
Scheidemann  who  pronounced  the  word  "Revolu- 
tion" in  the  Reichstag  was  engaged  with  approval 
in  sounding  through  socialistic  channels  the  pos- 
sibilities of  a  separate  peace  with  Russia,  and 
won  even  from  the  annexationist  press  the  com- 
pliment that  he  "was  in  a  fair  way  to  become  a 
statesman."  Yet  it  was  Herr  Scheidemann  who 
had  boldly  enunciated  the  doctrine  that  "the  an- 
nexation of  the  territory  of  a  foreign  population 
constitutes  a  violation  of  the  right  of  peoples  to 
dispose  of  themselves."  This  would  be  new  doc- 
trine to  the  house  of  Hohenzollern ;  but,  if  the 
army  should  fail,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if 
the  world  were  given  to  understand  that  the  em- 
peror, as  some  have  contended,  had  been  forced 
into  the  war  by  his  own  officers  and  their  con- 
federates against  his  will!  The  historian  may 
some  day  be  able  to  produce  the  evidence  that  this 


272     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

is  true.  If  this  should  prove  to  be  the  case,  it 
would  be  the  end  of  Prussianism,  but  would  it 
not  be  the  end  of  imperialism  also? 

Whatever  may  be  the  disclosures  of  the  future, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  is  the  main  issue 
of  the  Great  War — the  right  of  peoples  to  dis- 
pose of  themselves.  If  this  fundamental  right 
is  conceded,  there  is  a  solid  foundation  for  the 
new  Europe  when  the  peace  congress  meets  to 
determine  the  future;  for  this  right  involves  the 
repudiation  of  autocracy,  giving  the  state  an 
ethical  basis,  and  at  the  same  time  implies  the 
existence  of  the  inherent  obligation  of  every  peo- 
ple to  respect  that  right  in  others. 

Unhappily,  this  doctrine  has  not  yet  been 
clearly  enunciated  as  a  principle  of  public  law. 
In  Germany  it  is  still  disputed.  The  eminent 
professor  of  law  in  the  University  of  Berlin,  Dr. 
Joseph  Kohler,  writes: 

The  irresistible  force  of  war  and  conquest  takes  posses- 
sion of  countries  and  peoples.  That  is  one  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  international  law,  and  it  suffices  to 
make  litter  of  the  old  sentimentalities.  ...  It  is  need- 
less to  be  disquieted  over  the  superfluous  sentiment  regard- 
ing a  plebiscite,  in  virtue  of  which  it  is  of  importance  to 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  273 

consult  the  population  to  know  if  it  wishes  to  belong  to  one 
state  or  another.  The  territory  carries  with  it  the  popu- 
lation that  inhabits  it;  the  individual  who  is  not  satisfied 
has  only  to  quit  the  territory  of  the  State.  .  .  .  The  ra- 
tional assent  of  a  people  has  hardly  any  sense;  the  im- 
pulsive forces  of  the  popular  soul  repose  the  greater  part 
of  the  time  below  the  threshold  of  reason  and  reflection. 
Thus  it  is  all  reduced  to  force,  an  inflexible  domination. 

This  is  Prussianism,  which  is  at  once  a  philoso- 
phy, an  institution,  and  above  all  an  army.  It 
is  the  apotheosis  of  autocratic  power.  It  has 
created  the  Prussian  state,  and  the  logical  policy 
of  the  Prussian  state  is  the  domination  of  the 
world.  ^ 'World  dominion  or  downfall" — that  is 
the  declared  alternative  that  runs  through  the 
desperate  plotting  and  remorseless  barbarism  with 
which  Prussia  is  leading  to  ruin  one  of  the  great- 
est nations  on  the  earth. 

Historically,  Prussia  may  justly  claim  that  Eu- 
rope has  never  formally  repudiated  the  doctrine 
of  the  right  of  conquest,  and  that  virtually  every 
state  has  at  some  time  practised  it.  This  can- 
not be  disputed,  and  it  is  important  that  it  should 
not  be  forgotten,  for  the  time  has  now  arrived  to 
determine  permanently  whether  arbitrary  force  or 
the  generally  accepted  principles  of  justice  are  to 


274     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

constitute  the  basis  of  European  civilization.  If 
the  Central  powers  are  to  be  judged  by  their  con- 
duct, and  the  Allied  powers  by  their  professions, 
this  is  really  the  fundamental  issue  between  them. 
If  the  future  of  Europe  and  of  the  civilized  world 
is  to  rest  upon  the  assumption  that  a  powerful 
state,  in  order  to  satisfy  its  economic  ambitions, 
may  take  possession  of  the  territory  and  people 
of  a  weaker  state  by  military  force,  and  appro- 
priate the  land  and  the  people  to  its  purposes,  then 
all  Europe  and  all  the  world  is  already  Prussian- 
ized in  principle  and  will  soon  be  Prussianized 
in  fact.  It  would  be  encouraging  to  believe  that 
only  the  Central  Powers  and  their  Turkish  and 
Bulgarian  allies  accept  this  principle. 

It  was  the  menaced  application  of  the  Prussian 
theory  of  international  relationship  to  the  United 
States  that  finally  clarified  the  vision  of  the  Amer- 
ican people  and  enabled  them  to  perceive  that  neu- 
trality toward  an  empire  holding,  practising,  and 
plotting  to  extend  and  perpetuate  that  theory  is 
impossible.  They  had  hesitated  to  avenge  their 
dead,  cruelly  slaughtered  on  the  high  seas;  they 
had  been  reluctant  to  join  in  what  seemed  to  be  a 
European  quarrel ;  they  believed  that  the  German 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  275 

nation  would  itself  rise  in  denunciation  of  such 
enormities  as  it  had  been  led  into  perpetrating; 
they  waited  long  for  this  in  the  faith  that  a  whole 
people — a  people  that  had  risen  to  such  heights 
of  excellence  in  many  forms  of  civilization — could 
not  always  be  blinded  by  leaders  who  defied  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  to  check  what  they  deemed 
to  be  their  irresistible  force;  but  thus  far  they 
have  waited  in  vain. 

Those  who  best  know  Germany  and  the  Ger- 
mans do  not  look  for  a  general  revolution  while 
the  German  armies  are  not  beaten  in  the  field. 
Revolt  against  the  existing  system  is  not  only  ex- 
tremely perilous  for  the  persons  who  may  pro- 
pose it,  but  it  is  in  the  German  character  to  be 
loyal  to  the  Imperial  Government  while  their 
country  is  believed  to  be  still  in  peril.  Not  until 
the  whole  ghastly  truth  dawns  upon  them  regard- 
ing the  atrocities  committed  in  their  name,  how 
they  themselves  have  been  deceived;  what  cruel 
wrongs  have  been  done  to  their  sons  and  brothers 
in  leading  them  to  the  shambles  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  ports,  and  mines,  and  war  indemnities,  and 
that  this  has  brought  only  disaster,  debt,  and 
shame  upon  them,  will  the  German  people  cry 


276     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

out  for  a  more  responsible  control  of  their  own 
destinies  and  a  reorganization  of  international  life 
upon  a  basis  of  peace  through  justice.  Already 
isolated  voices  have  been  heard  demanding  these 
changes.  The  protests  have  come  mainly  from 
the  Social  Democrats,  but  it  is  not  they  alqne  who 
are  aware  that  Germany  stands  before  the  rest 
of  the  world  as  a  convicted  culprit  whose  good 
name  has  been  lost  through  an  unholy  alliance 
between  private  greed  and  the  weird  priest-craft 
of  divine  prerogative,  a  partnership  which  has 
decked  out  an  altar  of  sacrifice  in  the  name  of  re- 
ligion in  order  to  give  to  military  power  a  sacra- 
mental sanction  for  the  commission  of  wholesale 
crime. 

That  which  has  made  it  possible  for  this  al- 
liance to  obtain  the  support  of  the  German  people 
is  the  representation  that  Germany  is  the  victim 
of  the  selfish  designs  of  other  powers,  and  that  a 
fair  field  for  German  industry  and  commerce  and 
the  safety  of  Germany  from  future  attack  could 
be  secured  only  by  fighting.  So  long  as  this  is 
believed  to  be  true,  the  Imperial  Government  will 
not  improbably  be  able  to  command  support  even 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  277 

from  those  who  do  not  approve  of  aggressive  de- 
signs on  the  part  of  Germany. 

The  pathway  to  peace  therefore  leads  in  the 
direction  of  better  guarantees  of  justice  to  all  na- 
tions. So  long  as  purely  national  interests  are 
made  preeminent,  military  rivalry  will  be  con- 
sidered justified.  It  is  therefore  to  be  desired 
that  the  fruits  of  victory  in  this  war  shall  be  in- 
ternational fruits.  No  nation  should  be  per- 
mitted in  the  great  settlement  to  place  its  private 
interests  above  the  general  welfare.  Each  na- 
tion involved  in  the  Great  War  had,  no  doubt, 
its  own  special  national  interests  to  serve  in  en- 
tering it;  but  it  cannot  truthfully  be  said  that 
the  Entente  Allies  had  ends  in  view  that  were  not 
just.  Russia  was  vindicating  the  right  of  Serbia 
to  a  judicial  hearing.  France  was  Russia's  ally 
and  a  designated  victim  of  German  attack.  Eng- 
land was  a  pledged  defender  of  Belgian  neutrality, 
and  Belgium  was  ruthlessly  subjugated  in  viola- 
tion of  solemn  treaty  obligations  made  to  the 
United  States  as  well  as  to  the  European  powers. 
America's  entrance  into  the  war  was  a  response  to 
repeated  warlike  aggressions  and  secret  plots  di- 


278     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

rected  against  its  industries,  its  neutral  rights, 
and  its  territorial  integrity.  As  the  President  has 
well  said:  ^'We  have  no  selfish  ends  to  serve. 
We  desire  no  conquest,  no  dominion.  We  seek 
no  indemnities  for  ourselves,  no  material  compen- 
sation for  the  sacrifices  we  shall  freely  make.  We 
are  but  one  of  the  champions  of  the  rights  of  man- 
kind." But  this  championship  of  the  highest 
human  interests  would  be  illusory  and  nugatory 
if  the  treaties  of  peace  were  in  any  respect  embodi- 
ments of  the  doctrines  against  which  we  are  con- 
tending, no  matter  in  whose  interest  they  might 
be  invoked.  The  cause  for  which  we  are  fight- 
ing would  be  lost  if  there  remained  in  the  field  any 
bully  or  any  braggart  reasserting  a  right  to  claim 
territory  or  to  enslave  a  people  on  the  mere  ground 
of  conquest  by  superior  military  force.  The 
American  people  are  not  participating  in  this 
struggle  for  the  purpose  of  setting  any  European 
nation  above  another. 

There  will  be  questions  •  of  reparation,  of 
restoration,  and  of  guarantees  for  the  future,  but 
these  adjudications  should  be  made  on  judicial 
principles  and  not  merely  on  military  grounds. 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  279 

Claims  for  damages  and  for  advantages  made  by 
the  belligerents  might  very  well  be  submitted  to 
the  judgment  of  others  before  they  are  pressed  as 
final  conditions  of  settlement.  If  there  is  to  be 
a  durable  peace,  the  idea  of  internationalizing 
the  results  of  the  war  must  receive  an  immense 
development.  The  victory  of  the  Allies  will  not 
belong  to  one,  but  to  all;  and  the  sooner  the  fact 
of  community  of  interest  and  a  disposition  to 
submit  to  collective  judgment  can  be  established 
in  the  minds  of  the  belligerents,  the  sooner  will 
peace  be  possible,  and  the  more  just  and  lasting  it 
will  be.  Only  in  this  spirit  can  the  seas  and 
oceans  of  the  world  be  made  freely  accessible  and 
safe  for  all  nations.  Many  routes  of  transit  that 
have  hitherto  been  closed  to  the  nations  shut  off 
from  the  sea  will  need  to  be  opened,  and  the  back- 
ward nations  of  the  world  must  be  treated  as  the 
wards  in  common  of  those  more  advanced  in 
civilization. 

Nothing  could  contribute  more  effectually  to  a 
termination  of  the  war  than  a  frank  disavowal 
of  exclusive  national  gains.  The  exemplary 
spirit  of  renunciation  manifested  by  Russia  and 
the  known  absence  of  selfish  purposes  on  the  part 


280     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

of  the  United  States  might  well  inspire  such  a  dis- 
avowal. A  clear  statement  of  the  principles  of 
public  law  which  it  is  desirable  to  establish  for 
the  future,  with  a  solemn  compact  to  observe  and 
sustain  them,  would  be  an  appropriate  prelimi- 
nary to  the  negotiations  for  peace.  The  whole 
world  would  then  be  in  a  position  to  express  its 
voluntary  adherence  to  those  principles.  Such 
a  compact  would  necessarily  involve  the  repudia- 
tion of  the  right  of  conquest  for  the  purpose  of 
acquiring  territory  by  military  force  from  an  in- 
dependent state,  and  its  infamous  corollary  that 
the  population  goes  with  the  land  and  becomes 
subject  to  the  will  of  the  conqueror;  for  the  only 
foundation  upon  which  Europe  can  be  recon- 
structed as  a  society  of  states  is  the  inviolability 
of  its  law-abiding  members. 

History  will  judge  the  nations  involved  in  the 
Great  War  much  less  by  the  motives  with  which 
they  profess  to  have  entered  into  it  than  by  the 
results  they  finally  bring  out  of  it. 

If  the  signatories  of  the  treaty  of  peace  base 
its  terms  upon  secret  compacts  for  aggrandize- 
ment, and  go  forth  from  the  peace  congress  with 
new  secret  engagements  in  their  pockets,  the  idea 


AMERICA'S  INTEREST  281 

of  a  new  Europe  will  prove  but  a  dream,  and  it 
will  be  with  the  old  Europe  in  a  new  guise  that 
America  will  still  have  to  live. 

The  American  people  will  doubtless  support 
their  Government  in  joining  a  league  of  peace, 
but  they  will  expect  from  it  a  genuine  purpose  of 
peace  and  not  an  occasion  for  brewing  new  con- 
flicts into  which  the  United  States  or  other  Amer- 
ican countries  would  be  drawn. 

At  least  one  English  writer  has  hastily  assumed 
that 

President  Wilson  has  offered  to  guarantee  a  league  of 
peace  and  to  back  international  treaties  by  the  promise 
that  America  will  in  the  last  resort  intervene  against  the 
aggressor  and  the  treaty-breaker.  In  other  words,  she 
stands  security  for  such  treaties  in  the  future.  Her  inter- 
vention is  a  new  fact,  a  guarantee  of  a  kind  with  which  the 
past  was  unacquainted. 

Such  a  guarantee  would,  indeed,  be  "a  new 
fact,"  but  of  a  kind  with  which  the  future  also 
is  likely  to  be  unacquainted.  The  President  has 
of  course  made  no  such  pledge.  No  intelligent 
statesman  would  "stand  security" — knowing  how 
treaties  are  sometimes  made — for  treaties  he  had 
not  previously  approved. 


282     THE  REBUILDING  OF  EUROPE 

A  league  of  peace  there  will  no  doubt  be;  but 
such  a  league  cannot  at  the  same  time  be  a  league 
for  future  wars,  either  in  the  military  or  the 
economic  sense.  Guarantees  must  be  required 
from  all  and  equally,  but  the  best  guarantee  will 
be  a  new  community  of  interest,  based  on  the 
award  to  each  signatory  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
of  equal  rights  and  the  requirement  of  equal 
duties. 

The  American  people  desire  to  oppose  aggres- 
sion and  treaty-breaking;  but,  if  they  are  wise, 
they  will  not  pledge  their  Government,  under  the 
pretext  of  enforcing  peace,  either  to  make  war 
on  other  nations,  or  to  submit  to  war  as  a  legal 
act  if  made  upon  itself,  in  circumstances  wholly 
unknown  at  the  time  when  the  covenant  for  peace 
is  made. 

The  true  wisdom  is  for  America  to  associate 
itself  in  good  faith  with  the  forces  that  seek  for 
peace  with  justice  in  the  world;  but,  in  order  to 
perform  effectively  its  part,  the  first  duty  is  always 
to  be  able  to  defend  itself. 


INDEX 


Absolutism,   13-16 
Agrarian   leagues,  251 
Alldeutscher  Verhand,  91 
Althusius,    Johannes,   on  sover- 
eignty,  17-18 
Annexations  proposed  by  Ger- 
many,   250-262 
Armaments,  limitation  of,   125- 

126 
Austin,  John,  referred  to,  51 
Australia,  117 

Austria-Hungary,     as    part    of 
Central  Eiu-ope,   153-165 
the   weak   point   in   Prussia's 
plans,   168 
Autocracy,   cases  of,  227-228 
indictment  of,  214-215 
mysticism  of,   216-217 
subsists  on  war,  231 
wanting  a  moral  foimdation, 
221 

Backward  nations,   279 
Bagdad    railway,     referred    to, 

169,    126 
Balkan    States,    future    fate    of 

the,   155,  169,  237 
Bassermann,     German     deputy, 

quoted,  262 
Belgium,  invasion  of,  77 
future  fate  of,   169 
neutrality  of,   277 
retention  of  by  Germany,  259 


Berchtold,  Coimt,  telegram 
from,   129 

Bethmann-HoUweg,  referred  to, 
170,  172,  257,  258,  264, 
265 

Bismarck,  Prince  von,  referred 
to,  86,  87,  98,  140,  142, 
152,  166 

Bodin,   Jean,   referred  to,    15 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  referred 
to,  15,  117,  176 

British  Empire,  creation  of,  2>6 
neutrality   of   expected,    126- 

127 
transformation    of,     1 1 5-1 1 6, 
121 

Bryce,  Viscount,  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to,  108-109,  114 

Billow,  Prince  von,  quoted  or 
referred  to,  85-103,  141-142 

Bundesrat,  powers  of  the  Ger- 
man,  143-144 

Byzantinism  in  Germany,   144 

Canada,  117-119 

Catherine  II,  attitude  regard- 
ing Poland,  77 

Central  Europe,  referred  to, 
151-157,   161-169 

Cheradame,  Andre,  referred  to, 
.     102 

China,  interventions  in,  121, 
184 


284 


INDEX 


Christendom,      failure      of      to 
unite  Europe,  3-4,  10,  27 

Coal,  importance  of  to  political 
control,   255 

Commerce,  relation  of  to  peace 
and   war,   24-35 

Commonwealth    of    nations,    a 
vision  of  a,   104 

Conferences,      how      organized, 
188,   190,   192 
of  business  men,  204-206 
See  also  The  Hague  Confer- 
ences 

Conquest,   the  right   of,   20-22, 
273 

Constantinople,   the   fall  of,   3 

Covuts,    international,    68,    193- 
195 

Cruce,     Emeric,     referred     to, 
175 

Cuba,  Germany's  desire  to  pos- 
sess, 99 

Culture,  the  true  nature  of,  64- 
66 

Curia,  the  Roman,  4 

Czar   of   Russia,    the,    telegram 
from,   127 
referred  to,  137 


no    alliance    of    with    autoc- 
racy, 226 
the  testing  time  of,  116,   133 
the  war  of,  108-111 
Dernberg,    Dr.    Bernhard,    re- 
ferred to,  261-262 
Diplomacy,     the     function     of, 

199 
Divine    right,    the    dogma    of, 

228,  276 
Dominions,    the    British,    117- 

119 
Dreadnaughts,  the  first  building 

of,  125 
Dynasties,  abolition  of,  8 
secret  solidarity  of,   9 
struggle    of    with    feudalis-n, 
12 

Economic  imperialism,  170, 
200-203,  229 

Egypt,  British  attitude  in,   125 

"Encirclement"  of  Germany,  al- 
leged policy  of,  98,  125, 
258 

Entente  Allies,  aims  of,  84-85, 
109-110,  120,  274,  277 

Evolution,  political,  67 


Daily    Telegraph,    referred    to, 

142 
Declaration     of     Independence, 
omission  of  sovereignty  in, 
179-180 
Democracy,  a  basis  for  interna- 
tional law,  227 
a  constructive   principle,   208 
dangers  of,  32 

involves  a   principle   of  self- 
abnegation,  221-222 


Faustrecht,  4 

Fenelon,  quoted,  175 

Fetials,  college  of,  9 

Feudalism,   character  of,    12 

Fichte,  referred  to,  46 

Fisher,  Mr.  Andrew,  quoted, 
119 

Frederick  II,  of  Prussia,  quoted 
or  referred  to,  77,  166 

"Freedom  of  the  seas,"  mean- 
ing of,    122 


INDEX 


285 


Friedberg,  German  deputy,  re- 
ferred to,  259 

French  Revolution,  referred  to, 
15,  19,  46 

Gebsattel,    Major-General    von, 

quoted,   260 
George     III,     attitude     toward 

Poland,    77 
George  V,  referred  to,  130 
German    Emperor,     declaration 
of  war  by  the,    127 
powers  ascribed  to  the,   141 
See  also  William  II 
German  Empire,  aspiration  for 
world  power  by  the,    122- 
124 
constitution  of  the,   143-144 
efficiency  of  the  in  war,   147 
the     transfiguration     of     the, 
136-142,   145-146,  153,   171 
"Germanic    liberties,"    referred 

to,  140 
Government,  the  purpose  of,  44 
ownership    as    an    economic 
corporation,  24 
Greater  Germany,   93-96 
Greece,  the  future  fate  of,   169 
Greek  Empire,  the  fall  of  the, 

4-5 
Grey,     Sir    Edward,    telegrams 

from,    128-129 
Grotius,  Hugo,  referred  to,   13 
Grumbach,  S.,  publicist,  quoted, 

250 
Guarantees  of  peace,  278,  281- 
282 


Hague    Conferences,    The,    20, 
83,  125,  136-137,  189-191 


Hamburg  to  Bagdad  route,  see 
Bagdad  railway 

Hapsburg,  house  of,  referred  to, 
8,  154 

Harms,  Professor,  referred  to, 
151 

Hegel,  referred  to,  42-52,  63, 
139 

Helgoland,  124 

Hirsch,  German  deputy,  re- 
ferred to,  259 

Hohenlohe,  Prince  Alexander, 
quoted,  267-269 

Hohenzollern,  house  of,  re- 
ferred to,  89,  246,  263- 
266,  270-271 

Holland,  future  fate  of,  155, 
169 

Holy  Alliance,  the,  19,  178 

Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the 
German   Nation,    154 

Humanism,  struggle  of  with 
tribalism,  5,   10 

Ideals,  international,  38,  41,  66 
Imperialism,   dynastic,    73-74 
economic,    68-69,    70-71,    84, 

120-121 
See  also  Economic  imperial- 
ism 
Industrialism,   modern,   24,   30- 

35 
International    ideals,    the    real- 
ization of,  66 
Internationalism,  repudiation  of 
by   Germany,    138,    148-149 
International   law,    development 
of,  27 
existence  of,  56-57 
not    wholly    disregarded,    58- 
62 


286 


INDEX 


limitations  of,    193,    198-199, 
204 
International    organization,    40, 

172-174,    187 
International    right,    repudiated 
by  Tannenberg,  96 
defied    by    absolutism,     182- 
183 
International  unions,   199-200 

Japan,    referred   to,   241,    244 
Judicial    decisions,    enforcement 
of,   196-197 
See  also  Courts 

Kant,  quoted  or  referred  to,  14, 

43-50,    176 
Kiel    Canal,    referred    to,    124 
Kohler,  Dr.  Joseph,  quoted,  272 
Kultur,  the   "holy"   mission   of, 

90-91,   166 
See  also  Culture 

Law,  origin  of,  215-216 
nature  of,   49,   61 
supremacy  of,  4 
See  also  International  law 
Law,    Mr.    Bonar,    referred   to, 

115 
Laws,  of  struggle,  survival,  and 

selection,    173 
League   to   enforce   peace,    176, 

281 
"Liberty  of  national  evolution," 

meaning  of,   122 
Liebknecht,  Karl,  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to,   248-249 
Liszt,  Franz  von,  quoted,  122 
Loebell,    German    minister,    re- 
ferred to,  257 
Locke,  referred  to,   14 


Louis  XIV,  referred  to,  175 
Louis  XV,  attitude  on  Poland, 

77 
Lycurgus,  "the  modern,"  175 

Machiavelli,  referred  to,  11,  21, 
22 

Maria  Theresa,  attitude  on 
Poland,   78 

Mark  Brandenburg,  referred  to, 
151 

Marriage,  effect  of  in  forming 
nation-states,  8 

Mexico,  referred  to,  241,  244 
Gulf   of,    100 

Meyer,  Professor  Edward, 
quoted  or  referred  to,  136- 
138,    141-142,   146-149 

Michaelis,  German  chancellor, 
declaration  of,  265 

Militarism,  alliance  of  with  in- 
dustry and  commerce,  30- 
31,   34-35 

Mittel-Europa,  referred  to, 
151-152 

Moltke,  Field-marshal  von,  re- 
ferred to,   166 

Montesquieu,  referred  to,  14, 
175 

Muir,  Professor  Ramsey, 
quoted,    121 

Mumm,  German  deputy,  quoted 
260-261 


Nation,  what  is  a?  226 
National  monarchies,  5,  6,  12 
Nation-states,    formation    of    6 

not  accidents,  7 

not  of  pure  race,  7 

unity  of,  7 


INDEX 


287 


Naumann,  Dr.  Friedrich,  Ger- 
man deputy,  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to,    151-169 

Neues  Vaterland,  anti-annexa- 
tionist  league,  251 

Neutrality,   nature   of,    21-22 

New  Zealand,  117 

"Open  door,"  the,  206 
Ottoman  Empire,  establishment 
of  in  Europe,  3 

future  fate  of,  169 

reference  to,  111,  244 

Palace  of  peace,  137 
Pan-German    propaganda,    146, 

151,  191,  251-252 
Pax  Romana,  4 

Peace    congress    of    the    futvire, 
158 
enforcement  of,    62,   63,    197, 

281-282 
first    article    of    a   treaty    of, 

134-135 
repudiation    of    by    Tannen- 

berg,   93 
the  pathway  to,  277 
under  absolutism   an  "empty 
dream,"    48 
Penn,  William,  referred  to,  175 
Personality,  as  a  basis  of  rights, 
43,   50,   223 
claims  of,  65 
development  of,  63 
Phillips,  Alison,  quoted,  178 
Poland,  partition  of,  77 
Protection    of    citizens    abroad, 

duty   of,    202-203 
Prussia,   domination   of,   88-91, 
141-151,  166-169 


King    of    German    emperor, 

143 
official  philosophy  of,  103 
origin  of,  150 
Prussianism,  defined,  273 
Prussian  peasant,  political  igno- 
rance of  the,  247-248 

Reparation  after  the  war,  278 
Restoration,  after  the  war,  278 
Reichstag,    Declaration    by    the 
German,  265 
limited   powers   of   the   Ger- 
man, 143-144,  266 
Rhodes,  Cecil,  referred  to,  154 
Rights,  the  foundation  of,  51 
Roman  law,  4,  9,  12 

republic  and  unjust  wars,  9 
effects  of,  4,  5 
Romanoff  dynasty,  the,  referred 

to,   246 
Rousseau,  J.  J.,  referred  to,  14 
Russia,  revolution  in,  115,  246, 
279 

Saint-Pierre,  the  Abbe  de,  re- 
ferred to,  176 

Sarajevo,  the  assassination  at, 
112 

Sazanoff,  Mr.,  telegram  from, 
128-129 

Scandinavian  Kingdoms,  the 
future  fate  of  the,  155,  169, 
237 

Scheidemann,  Herr,  German 
deputy,  269,  271 

Seeley,  Sir  John,  referred  to,  36 

S  if  ton.  Sir  Clifford,  quoted,  116 

Six  Great  Leagues,  for  an- 
nexation, referred  to,  251, 
254 


288 


INDEX 


"Social  consciousness,"  220 
Social  Democrats,  in  Germany, 

248,  257,  264,  276 
"Social  solidarity,"  219 
Society  of  States,  a  real,   106- 

107 
Solf,      Dr.,      German     colonial 

minister,  referred  to,  257 
Sovereignty,     absolute     concep- 
tion of,  12,  14,  16 
Althusius'  conception  of,   17- 

18 
as    substance    of    the    State, 

10 
consequences  of  the  absolute 

conception  of,  27 
definition  of,  14 
idea  of  unchanged  by  French 

Revolution,  24 
in  American   sense,    179-181, 

188 
in    constitutional   states,    55- 

56 
necessary  limitation  of,   183- 

184,   188,   191 
reconstruction  of  the  idea  of, 
234 
South  Africa,  117 
Spahn,  Dr.,  German  deputy,  re- 
ferred to,  268 
Spencer,    Herbert,    referred    to, 

30 
State,    a    business    corporation, 
31-32 
absolute    conception    of    the, 

12-13 
democratic  conception  of  the, 

217-219 
fiduciary  function  of  the,  153 
fundamental  ftmction  of  the, 
54 


irresponsibility  of  the,  in  the 
absolutist  conception,  26 

modern  demands  upon  the,  29 

nature  of  the  modern  na- 
tional, 25 

Professor  Meyer's  concep- 
tion of  the  German,  138, 
139 

revised  views  of  the,  79 

theories  of  the,  41,  42,  43,  44, 
46,  48 

Treitschke's  idea  of  the,   155 
States,  constitutional,  68 

responsibility  of,  37 

the  society  of,  106,   107 
Submarine  warfare,  238-243 
Sully's  alleged  "Great  Design," 

referred  to,   176 
Switzerland,  coexistence  of  dif- 
ferent races  in,  66 

future  fate  of,  155,  169,  237 
taxation  in,  60 

Tannenberg,  Otto  Richard, 
quoted  or  referred  to,  91- 
100 

Thirty  Years'  War,  referred  to, 
175 

Trade  rivalry,  33-34 

Treaties,  German  drafts  of  fu- 
ture, 101-102 

Treitschke,  referred  to,  155 

Trench  defenses  in  the  future, 
160-161 

Tribalism,  struggle  of  human- 
ism with,  5 

Tribunals,  international,  see 
Courts 

Troppau,  the  Conference  of,  19 

Trusts,  international,  207 

Turkey,  intervention  in,  184 


INDEX 


289 


relation  of  to  Germany,   97 
See  also  Ottoman  Empire 

Unions,   international,   199-200 
United   States  of   America,   in- 
ternational law  in  the,  56 
reasons   of    the    for   entering 
the    Great    War,    236-245, 
274 
Utrecht,  Congress  of,  175 

Vienna,  Congress  of,  19,  157 
Villari,  referred  to,  11 

War,    the    unlimited    right    to 

wage,    19-21 
Wars,  duration  of  modem,  74- 

76 
results  of  trade  rivalry,  34 
Waterways,  206,  279 
Wellington,    Duke    of,    referred 

to,    117 
Weltpolitik,  German  dream  of, 

92 


Westphalia,  Peace  of,  its  effect, 
76 
treaties  of,  13 

William  I,  German  emperor,  re- 
ferred to,  142 

William  II,  telegram  from,  131 
revolt    against    produced    by 
Daily    Telegraph    incident, 
142 
See  also  German  Emperor 

White,  Hon.  Andrew  D.,  re- 
ferred to,  267 

Wilson,  President,  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to,  243,  246,  278, 
281 

Zanzibar,  124 

Zedlitz-Neukirch,  Prussian  dep- 
uty, quoted,  262-263 

Zimmermann,  Herr,  German 
Secretary  for  foreign  af- 
airs,   quoted,  240-241 

Zeppelin  air-ships,  126 


Return  to  desk  from  which  bonrowed. 


This  book  is  DUE  on 


the  last  date  stamped  below. 


REC'D  LD 


jKftV?!  s  '353 1  y  JUN    3  '65  -12  M 


t-.  »f  > 


6SC.i 


REC'D  LI 
0CT19'63-11AM 


,ii;.«ft'^^^ 


LD21 


_100m-9.'47(A5702sl6)476^^ 


p^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


■f^*   j|-    *^V«f, 


